Cannabis and Mental Health

Lord Waddington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether in the light of new evidence published in the British Medical Journal dated 23rd November 2002 they believe that the use of cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government accept that there is a relationship between heavy cannabis use and the risk of experiencing a number of mental health problems, although these are mostly short lived. The British Medical Journal papers strengthen the evidence for its potential role in schizophrenia. The editorial points out that cannabis as a cause of schizophrenia remains unproven. The Government will continue to update policy and guidance informed by carefully considered expert analysis of the evidence.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. The article to which I refer in my Question bears the subheading,
	"More evidence establishes clear link between use of cannabis and psychiatric illness".
	Does that not show clearly that cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia and not only for those who already have mental health problems?
	In the light of that evidence, is it not horrifying that cannabis use is soaring; and should not the Government in its publicity make plain that cannabis, far from being relatively harmless, is a cause of mental illness as well as being five times more likely than tobacco to cause lung cancer?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the BMJ article is an interesting article. It reports the association between the level of cannabis use and the risk of development of depression and anxiety. It shows evidence that prior cannabis use is significantly associated with an increased risk of subsequently developing schizophrenia. What has not yet been shown beyond doubt is whether there is a causal relationship. But, in relation to the general point made by the noble Lord, I am concerned at the instance of cannabis use in this country, as I am concerned about the use of other harmful drugs in this country. We shall endeavour in our preventive and educational programmes to make the point the noble Lord raised.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that heavy and continuous consumption of cannabis in itself may give rise to delusions and hallucinations, which are symptoms that closely resemble those of schizophrenia? Does he also accept, as is implied by the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and his reply that there is nevertheless growing evidence to suggest that schizophrenia may be precipitated by its use, in particular in genetically disposed individuals? Is it not therefore the Government's duty to publicise the nature of this risk?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that we need to publicise the risk of using cannabis as part of our educational and preventive programmes. Clearly, the current state of research and evidence points to the physical and mental health risks. What has not been proven is the direct causal relationship between the use of cannabis and schizophrenia. But the general points raised by the noble Lord are apposite.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I think that the Minister is agreeing that there is an increased risk of mental health problems and certainly physical health problems due to the carcinogenic effect of cannabis. Can he therefore explain the Department of Health's deafening silence on the Home Office's reckless policy of abandonment of protection through the criminal law?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that that is a very accurate reading of the situation. The Home Office has taken advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Government have made absolutely clear that use of all controlled drugs, including cannabis, is harmful. But drug laws must accurately reflect the relative harm of drugs if a credible message is to be put out to the public, including young people. That is why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised that, although cannabis is harmful, it is not as harmful as other drugs currently classified in class B and therefore recommended that it should be reclassified as a class C drug. But its use will still be illegal. There will still be severe penalties for trafficking. The police will retain the power to arrest for possession linked to aggravated public order. That is proportionate advice from an expert advisory committee.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords—

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have plenty of time. Perhaps we may start with my noble friend Lord Mackenzie and then the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, bearing in mind the dangers of driving while under the influence of cannabis, can my noble friend say whether there has been any progress on the development of a roadside testing device that detects cannabis in blood?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend that, although I am happy to write to him about the matter.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister is correct to separate the criminal law and its treatment of cannabis from the health and educational aspects relating to cannabis as done by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Runciman report. Should not the health education unit be given more resources, so that it can credibly put across to young people the health problems associated with the use of cannabis?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the need to emphasise and develop health prevention programmes, including getting the right messages across to young people. We have a local drug education and prevention budget of around £13 million in 2002–03. A great deal of work is being undertaken and co-operation between the NHS, local education authorities, schools and the police is of a high order. Of course we encourage them to work together in this area.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is considerable potential value in the use of cannabis as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of certain diseases, such as disseminated sclerosis?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the point that my noble friend makes. Research is currently being undertaken into some of the medical benefits of certain derivatives of cannabis. The results from those studies will be considered in due course—we believe that some results will be available later in the year. If any of the trials are successful, application can then be made to the Medicines Control Agency for a licence.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that cannabis can be used in several different strengths? Will liquid cannabis still be a class A drug?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, so far as I am aware, there are issues concerning the strength of the cannabis being used. However, the recommendation of the advisory council to reclassify cannabis applies to all cannabis preparations.

Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one problem is that cannabis is now supplied by illegal providers and, as a result, the strength and quality of the drug is unknown and it comes with no health warning? Does my noble friend even remotely accept that, if it were available through controlled legal outlets, it could be of known potency and could even carry an accompanying health warning, giving advice such as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Walton?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the implication of my noble friend's question is that the use of cannabis and, indeed, other drugs should be decriminalised. The Government believe that it would be wrong to do so and that it would give all the wrong signals. A MORI poll carried out for the Police Foundation in March 2000 found that 30 per cent of adults cited illegality as a reason for not taking drugs.

Child Protection

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a patron of the child's charity, Kidscape.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what priority is given to child protection by the police.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, child protection needs to be a priority. The National Policing Plan makes that clear. It stipulates that chief officers should review their local policing plans to ensure that child protection is given the appropriate priority. The Victoria Climbie inquiry report, published earlier today, highlights the urgency with which we must address that issue.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Does he agree that, while the NSPCC has welcomed many of the proposals in the forthcoming Sexual Offences Bill to improve the protection of children, it is right to be concerned that, if the police are not able to dedicate appropriate resources, little impact will be made? Will he therefore confirm that child protection will be made a national priority for the police and the probation services, as recommended in the joint report of the chief inspectors in October, and that it will receive a high priority in the National Policing Plan?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can confirm that it is a national priority. The National Policing Plan requires chief officers to reflect the fact that it is a national priority in their local policing plans by including child protection strategies from 1st April. More detailed recommendations are contained in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, published today, on which my noble friend Lord Hunt will make a Statement immediately after Questions. The report focuses on precisely what needs to be done. The issue is incredibly important and the Victoria Climbie inquiry indicates its urgency.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm today's report from the Met that large numbers of police from the Child Protection Unit are being removed in order to deal with more than 1,200 cases of people identified on the Internet as paedophiles? Effectively, does that mean that there is less protection for children now? Will he enter into discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to see how far it is possible to offer children all the protection that is necessary?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the National Policing Plan makes it clear that child protection must be a priority. The Laming report, which my noble friend will deal with later this afternoon, specifies what that means in practice. The Metropolitan Police have reorganised their child protection arrangements in advance of the publication of the Laming report. Individual police forces must determine where the priorities lie as between operation and individual cases of child protection. But we all agree the importance that must be attached to the protection of children in individual cases.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, does he further agree that the leaking of a list, apparently from police sources, to the Sunday Times is very serious? Can he assure the House that steps will be taken to investigate the source of that leak?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the details of any leak and I should need to make inquiries about it. Plainly, it is inappropriate to leak that type of information to the press. Such steps as need to be taken will be taken. The focus of this Question relates to child protection, which I believe has more to do with the issues raised by the Laming report than with the kind of issue raised by the noble Viscount.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister say what correlation he believes exists between the downloading of child pornography from the Internet and active involvement in child abuse?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe there is a link in the sense that people who download child pornography may well be connected in some way with activities which are worse than simply downloading pornography. I believe that there are differing views as to the scientific link, but plainly there is a link.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, I also declare an interest as president of the Welsh Trust for the Prevention of Abuse. The work of the trust follows a slightly different tack but I believe that it is significant in the question of child protection. Does my noble friend agree that it is important to ensure awareness among children of the many difficulties or potential dangers that they face? In that respect, is he aware of the much acclaimed video produced by the trust that I mentioned? The video will go into all schools in Wales to make children aware of the potential dangers.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is important to make children aware of the dangers. I do not know of the video to which my noble friend refers and I would welcome the opportunity to view it.

Retailers: First Aid Awareness

Viscount Falkland: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that large retailers are aware of the medical procedures in the event of customers or staff collapsing due for instance to epilepsy or diabetes.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have no specific information about large retailers' awareness towards customers in this matter as there is no legal requirement to provide such assistance. The Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 set out employers' responsibilities. Employers must provide adequate and appropriate first aid facilities and equipment for employees who are injured or who become ill at work. The regulations do not require first aid provision for members of the public. However, research has found that on the whole employers, including retailers, are aware of their responsibilities.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. I know that she has had some difficulty with the way in which I have phrased my Question. I thank her for dealing with the issue in relation to staff.
	I was concerned about a report that I received from a member of the staff of this House. Over a week ago he was in a supermarket and suffered a hypoglycaemic episode, which describes a dangerously low blood-sugar level, from which he subsequently collapsed. He woke up in hospital and later discovered that he had been put into an alleyway outside the premises by the staff of the supermarket. Thanks to an observant member of the public, an ambulance was called and after treatment he recovered. Does the Minister agree that that demonstrates a need for further education for the staff and management of businesses such as supermarkets? I know that this matter is somewhat outside her scope, but can she offer some encouragement and guidance on it?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Viscount, gives the House an appalling and horrifying story that could happen to any of us who suffered a cardiac arrest or a similar problem when staff were not in a position to recognise the cause. Staff may assume that one's condition is due to something other than a medical condition and as a result bypass it. I can give the noble Viscount some help.
	Although under health and safety legislation employers have a responsibility only towards their employees, this autumn the Health and Safety Executive will publish a discussion document on the provision of first aid in the work place. Together with my colleagues at the Department of Health—my noble friend Lord Hunt is listening to what I say—I shall ensure that a copy of that discussion document is sent to all major retailers. I shall also ensure that it includes questions, thus seeking their views as to what provision they can make for members of the public who may be in such a horrifying position as described by the noble Viscount.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that a year ago I was smitten by a similar event and was carried unconscious from the palace where I was picked up by an ambulance? Senior staff of the Law Lords department appeared to know exactly what to do and happily I am here today.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are all the richer for the presence of the noble Lord. It struck me that your Lordships may be interested in the situation in the Palace of Westminster. To allay the fears of noble Lords, there are 18 trained first-aiders in the House of Lords and an additional 71 trained first-aiders in the House of Commons who are available to both Houses. I am delighted to report that there are also 42 people trained to use defibrillators, so I am confident that if any of us experiences a sudden cardiac arrest, a hypoglycaemic attack or a collapse we shall have the best possible support and service. That support and service is also offered to members of the public.

Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former trustee of Diabetes UK and as someone who has type II diabetes. Is my noble friend aware that although the health and safety first-aid regulations cover employees, the Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance to undertakings that provide a service to the public, such as places of entertainment and shops? Will she encourage the Health and Safety Executive to make that more widely understood and available particularly to large retailers?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, I had picked up that point. I understand that local authority licences require that there is adequate first aid provision for members of the public in places of public entertainment, such as cinemas, sports halls or the like. As the noble Lord has rightly identified, the problem is that health and safety at work applies to employees and there is no clear legal responsibility for members of the public who may collapse in a shop or on the street. There is a duty of care for ambulances to respond to a call for help, but there is no duty on any of us to summon that ambulance.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, while I welcome the proposed discussion document, can the noble Baroness say whether it will consider not only the provision of equipment and training but also the provision of suitable notices for anyone who may happen to be on the spot when such an incident occurs?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall do my best to ensure that that is included.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I declare an interest in Epilepsy Action. Is the Minister aware that the generic first aid courses undertaken by the staff of such stores do not include how to deal with epileptic seizures or diabetic comas? Perhaps it would be helpful if guidance were issued stating that at least one member of staff in such large buildings should have that special training. Does the Minister agree that people who suffer such illnesses should helpfully wear clearly visible Medic Alert bracelets or necklaces so that staff can identify them?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the second point, clearly it is not appropriate to have an information leaflet inside one's wallet; it needs to be obviously available to staff so that they know that there is a medical cause for the collapse. On the training in epileptic seizures, the point of the discussion document is that the current first aid provisions are based on regulations drawn up in 1981. At the moment that provides for extensive training initially—four days—which can be costly to small employers, but there is then a problem with skill fade. Issues about how to keep training up to date, whether we can extend it to the use of defibrillators, the use of medicines, Epipens and the like as well as the treatment of epilepsy, are precisely the points that we hope to explore in the discussion document.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, would it be a good idea if more first aid training, including training in diabetes and epilepsy, were undertaken in schools and colleges so that a wider proportion of the populace had such expertise? Is it true that often when people pass out, other people believe that they are drunk, leading to someone being placed in an alley?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I spoke more euphemistically about the matter, but I am sure that your Lordships understood what I was saying. Many schools offer some first aid training, but there are something like 1,500 first aid training providers led by St John Ambulance which trains 500,000 volunteers a year, and the British Red Cross which trains another 200,000 a year. It is found that those who volunteer to undertake first aid training as employees often do so because it is of value to their family circumstances. We need to find the most effective way to keep such skills up to date. That is one reason why we shall be seeking views in the discussion document.

Electricity Transmission

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of Micropower, which promotes the small-scale generation of electricity.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to reduce losses in the transmission of electricity, estimated at £600 million a year.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, on 17th January Ofgem announced that it had approved a modification to the Balancing and Settlement Code to implement zonal transmission losses on an average and ex ante basis throughout England and Wales by April 2004. The authority believes that short-term benefits would accrue of approximately £200,000 to £1.5 million on annual transmission losses of £90.8 million, by incentivising companies into making more efficient decisions on the siting of demand and generation in the future. My honourable colleague the Minister for Energy and Construction announced last Thursday that the DTI would be undertaking a consultation on the applicability of zonal transmission losses on a GB basis.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to hear of those initiatives. Is the noble Lord aware that transmission losses at the present level add £12 to the average electricity bill and account for 5 million tonnes of carbon emissions? The Government's target is a reduction in emissions of 30 million tonnes, but those losses contribute substantially to the problem.
	Will the noble Lord accept that, in addition to improvements in the distribution networks, more effort should be made to site generating plant near consumers, including siting on consumers' premises, which would eliminate transmission losses?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of transmission losses is a difficult one. The figure of £90 million, to which I referred, is the figure for transmission losses on the main transmission system. Obviously, there are additional losses on the local distribution system, but it is difficult to do anything about those by resiting generators.
	There are some gains to be made, although they do not look so great, due to the resiting of generators. The figures that I gave—from £200,000 to £1.5 million, with an upside figure of £5 million—are, in one sense, quite large. However, compared to the £60 billion cost of electricity, they are not a major issue.
	Although the proposal is of benefit to embedded generators because it saves the transmission, we must also take into account the fact that it could be unfavourable to the location of renewable sources of energy, particularly offshore wind, or the generation of energy in distant places. There are benefits in both directions.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, does not the Minister's reply suggest that the time has come to review the workings of the new electricity trading arrangements, the principal effect of which seems to have been to make previously profitable undertakings unprofitable and vice versa? Does the Minister understand that the loss of power to individuals and regions would subject the citizens of this country to serious problems that would be unwelcome to Her Majesty's Government at this time?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, NETA has removed the distortions of the old pool and prices problem. It has led not to chaos but to a fall in prices. That is appropriate in circumstances in which there is too much capacity. We propose to bring in the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements for the whole of GB, and we hope that that will also lead to a fall in prices in Scotland.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the proposals for reducing expenditure that the Minister has just referred to based on improvements to transformer systems or on more use of overhead lines, although there must be restrictions on the siting of pylons?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the answer is "Neither". It is a supposition that the generators will either resite the generating plants in due course or will realign them so that there is less loss on existing lines between the point at which the electricity comes on the line and the point at which it goes off to the supplier.

British National Party

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What lessons should be learnt from the British National Party victory in Halifax last Thursday.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the British National Party won the support of only one in 10 eligible voters, and the party holds only five council seats out of around 20,000 in England and Wales. However, the result in Halifax is a matter of concern. Even limited successes for far-Right parties show that we cannot be complacent about community cohesion and race relations in Britain. We must persuade people that solutions do not reside in the dangerous ideas put forward by far-Right groups.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly the comments at the end. The BNP win in Halifax last Thursday is the latest in a small number of disturbing successes for that fascist party that appear, at least in part, to be the result of the present national climate of completely unjustified fear and hysteria about refugees, whipped up by the tabloid media and fanned by some politicians. Have the Government considered whether some of the provocative, racist lies that have appeared in parts of the press should be referred to the Press Complaints Commission or made the subject of prosecutions for racial incitement? Is the frightening situation helped by some new Labour politicians, who have wrongly referred to schools being "swamped" by asylum seekers and now threaten to scrap this country's obligations under international human rights legislation?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that was a long supplementary question that, step-by-step, turned to other areas. I shall try to respond to some of the issues raised.
	The public have the right to make complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, if they think that some media reporting is extreme and offends against the PCC's code. The Times described some recent media coverage as hyperbolic. That is an accurate description of the equation that is made between asylum seekers and terrorists. It is a dangerously overlapped equation. I know that the Commission for Racial Equality is concerned about the situation and is monitoring it.
	Oblique reference was made to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He has been absolutely right in signalling that, as a nation, we had to make two issues clear: we are committed to providing protection to refugees from oppression and torture, while being realistic, clear and tough in stamping out abuse and making it harder for illegal immigrants to come into the country.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a contributing factor to the relative success of neo-fascist parties in places such as Burnley, Blackburn and Halifax is the misleading and deliberate distortion of facts in those areas? Does he also agree that the Government's initiatives—urban regeneration, neighbourhood renewal, local strategic partnerships—offer a way for the nation to combat such wicked and evil people? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will do their best to get the truth out in areas that, unfortunately, have been neglected for decades?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, ensuring that conditions are in place that will allow all in our society to prosper is, undoubtedly, a part of any proper strategy for stopping the growth of racism, xenophobia or Islamophobia. I include poor white communities in that, as much as others. Such conditions are crucial, which is why the neighbourhood renewal, social exclusion and community cohesion work that is being done throughout government to strengthen capacity in such areas and promote dialogue and understanding is vital.
	I also mark the importance of local leadership in that context. Without going into detail, I will say that particular local issues will always contribute to the results of such elections. That is not to take away from the responsibility of the Government and each of the major national political parties to consider again whether they give people confidence that mainstream politics can address their concerns.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, is it not likely that the BNP cashed in on the public perception that the Government have lost control of the asylum situation? Is there not a lesson for the Government to learn?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is a lesson for the Government to learn, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been clear, brave and courageous in acknowledging that we must put across to the public the fact that we are getting to grips with the asylum situation. I shall not go into detail—I am happy to do so on another occasion—about the measures that are in place, following the legislation, to make entry harder and stamp out abuse.
	At the same time, we do not aid community cohesion or create the sort of society that we want by extremism—in this place or anywhere else—that implies that all asylum seekers are terrorists or by creating that impression. At that level, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is correct: some of the extremist reporting that has taken place will, perhaps, have played into the BNP's hands.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, under any electoral system bar Britain's bizarre first-past-the-post system, the BNP would not have come within a country mile of winning that seat in Halifax? Will he change the system?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that if I said that it would be done by Tuesday, the House would not believe me. So the answer is no. It is also noted that the contribution of independent parties in these elections was one of the products that led to the result. I shall say no more at this point.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected Member of Calderdale Council, of which Halifax is part. Would the Minister agree that there are several lessons to be learnt from that result, and the disaffection that led to the result last Thursday? In particular, it is far from helpful that, because of our system of organising local government finance, the council has to consult on the 14 per cent council tax rise, for no discernible increase in services, at six or seven times the rate of inflation. Furthermore, Calderdale is one of only two metropolitan councils out of 36 that is denied benefit from neighbourhood renewal funding. Should not the criteria for that be looked at afresh?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am disappointed by that question. It implies that the result of that election was the product of the local government finance settlement by this Government. While we should take responsibility for many things, I do not think that is a reasonable or fair inference in this case. There will never be enough money for local government, in terms of what it wants; there will never be a system of local government finance distribution that commands universal support. Members opposite know that as well as we do on our Benches.
	If we should want to find local issues, the large increase in members' allowances had substantially played to the BNP's position, plus the failure to resign voluntarily of a councillor who had not turned up for six months. Those are factors which are very much within the hands of local parties and the council itself.

Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind, that although not all asylum seekers are terrorists, some of them are not genuine asylum seekers?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, unless I blinked at the wrong moment, I thought that during the past six months, in the legislation brought into this House from about June through to November, we could not have been clearer on that fact. The challenge to the Government, and to public policy generally, is to sort out one from the other. We must ensure that we do not encourage illegal migration to this country, while, at the same time, we should give refuge to those who are genuine migrants. We are clear on that issue and have put in place a range of measures which will make significant progress on closing that gap.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I refer to the point made by my noble friend concerning the national press. Does the Minister not consider that the press complaints' system is entirely inadequate to deal with some of the racist comments that have appeared in certain newspapers and, in particular, the Sun? Will he refer these matters to the police so that they can investigate whether a criminal offence has been committed under the provisions regarding incitement to racial hatred?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that those issues are being regularly tracked by the responsible authorities. I shall say no more than that.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the grave and very extensive concern that exists throughout the country about the volume of illegal immigrants? Can he explain why the Prime Minister has confessed that perhaps the measures referred to may not be altogether successful and why the European convention may need to be examined?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, I would be blind if I had not noticed the strength of concern in the country about illegal immigration, while not for one second implying that legal migration does not play a valuable role in our economy and in our society, because it does. If one looks at the Prime Minister's comments on "Breakfast with Frost"—the transcript is clear—he made absolutely clear his expectation that the measures taken in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, combined with the measures we are undertaking with France and Belgium substantially to strengthen entry control physically, should make very considerable progress in terms of ensuring that we have staunched the problem.
	In response to a specific question, the Prime Minister also recognised that there would be a need to think about how immigration asylum policy develops in the future. That is an issue on which we have signalled in this House previously, that while the 1951 convention is right in its principles, it will benefit from serious and sober reflection on how it should be developed to cope with a world that has changed since 1951. I know that many Members share that endeavour; later this year, we shall no doubt outline further thinking on that.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be particularly unfortunate if the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister does anything along the lines that he was suggesting just at the moment when the Community is fighting really hard to obtain a unified policy on immigration which would be of great benefit to this country, because immigrants would have to be registered in the country where they first arrive in the Community?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am not certain that I totally seized the question; I shall be happy to give further thought subsequently. However, I am certain that what the Prime Minister said, and the leadership that he has given in both international and domestic issues, are absolutely appropriate for the circumstances that we are in. For the future, we must think about whether there are better ways of giving refuge to those people who need it under the 1951 convention but who currently do not get it. I can but instance what happened in Rwanda and in many places around the world. We must be concerned about the fact that operationally the current system does not help such people. Therefore, it requires fresh thinking.

Sexual Offences Bill [HL]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that matters already decided may not be brought forward again during the same Session, the House may vote on all of the seven Motions standing in the name of the Lord Privy Seal on Tuesday 4th February; and that Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on that day so that the seven Motions may be taken before other public business.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that we have already spent 20 hours or more discussing this very important matter—three and a half hours in a debate before Christmas and at least 17 hours last week—is it necessary for further discussion on the seven Motions? If all those Motions were put to the vote, they would collectively take a good many more hours to dispose of. Would it not be better if we went straight into voting on these Motions?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Oh yes, my Lords. But it is not my birthday on 4th February; it is on the 5th. Therefore, I do not think that I shall have a present on the 4th. That is entirely a matter for your Lordships. Most of your Lordships will think that we gave the issue a fair ventilation—if that is quite the word I am looking for—last week. It was 15 hours, only. There is much to be said for going directly to the Motions. If we vote on the seven Motions without any, or too much, discussion, that will take approximately an hour and a half.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 29th January

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Freyberg and the Baroness Warnock set down for tomorrow shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fire Dispute

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the fire dispute and the Government's proposals in the light of the breakdown of discussions at ACAS.
	"The House will be aware that all sides welcomed the resumption of talks after last Tuesday's 24-hour strike. The chair of ACAS agreed terms of reference for those talks with both the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. The terms of reference are very wide and say that both sides should,
	"bring their respective agenda to the table and neither side should seek to rule any issue in or out".
	"Despite that, the Fire Brigades Union executive decided yesterday to go ahead with further strikes and at nine o'clock this morning the FBU walked out for the fourth time. They will be on strike for 48 hours and at present are scheduled to walk out again for a further 48 hours on Saturday morning.
	"While we sit here, the Armed Forces and other emergency services, including the police and the many retained fire fighters who have continued to work during the strikes, are providing cover for the striking fire fighters. I am sure that the House will want to join me to express our thanks for their courage and hard work and for the way they have conducted themselves throughout this dispute.
	"I have made clear that the Armed Forces will have the resources they need. As I said when I made my last Statement to the House on 20th January, we have now provided 177 red engines to augment the Green Goddess fleet. I can now inform the House that for the first time in these strikes we have a number of aerial water towers to provide cover in extreme situations. The Armed Forces also have 30 new thermal imaging cameras.
	"The history of this dispute has been one of last-minute ultimatums and walkouts by the FBU. Let no one in this House be in any doubt. The switch from a series of eight-day strikes before Christmas to a programme of one and two-day strikes after Christmas does not represent a change of heart on the part of the FBU. Far from it. All it represents is a change of tactics. Its aim is minimum pain for FBU members and maximum disruption for everyone else.
	"It is the Government's duty to maintain public safety and we will continue to do so. But the House should be aware that so far this dispute has cost the taxpayer more than £70 million. And costs continue to rise at £1 million a day for as long as the dispute continues—whether or not the FBU is on strike. That money has not come from the reserve. It has come from programmes in my office designed to help the most needy in our communities.
	"The FBU is now trying to shift its ground by claiming that this dispute is about job cuts and protecting the Fire Service rather than pay and modernisation, as set out by Sir George Bain's independent review of the Fire Service.
	"The FBU is not interested in the modernisation agenda. It has put out false and misleading information about thousands of job losses and hundreds of fire station closures. That is a gross distortion of the proposals set out by Sir George Bain. Sir George made it clear that there is absolutely no need for compulsory redundancies. Modernisation will not lead to hundreds of fire station closures. Instead, it will lead to a better Fire Service, greater safety for the public and more rewarding careers for Fire Service employees.
	"The FBU is now seeking a judicial review of the proposed repeal of Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, now before the House. That is a sign of how completely it is opposed to modernisation. The repeal of Section 19 will do no more than put the management of the Fire Service in local hands. All it removes is a bureaucratic obstacle, but it is an obstacle that the FBU has used to good effect to protect its outdated working practices. Contrary to what the FBU claims, local communities will still be consulted on Fire Service priorities and plans. That has not changed.
	"Let no one be in any doubt, the FBU's claim remains what it has been for the past nine months—a 40 per cent pay rise for fire fighters and 50 per cent for control room staff without any commitment to modernisation whatever. No change. No compromise. No modernisation.
	"Talks at ACAS started on 4th December. There have been days and days of talks about talks. And yet the FBU has walked away without any substantive negotiations.
	"I have had numerous discussions with the General Secretary of the FBU and the Government have given him the benefit of the doubt. But this latest strike—coming so soon after the terms of reference for the negotiations were agreed—leads me to conclude that the FBU executive is not serious about a negotiated settlement.
	"This latest round of strikes confirms that the FBU is playing cat and mouse with the employers, the Government, public safety and public money. The Government and the local authority employers want to see a fully modernised Fire Service providing the best service to the public. The FBU refuses even to negotiate about that.
	"The employers are rightly now insisting, in the light of the past two months of strike action, that talks cannot take place while strikes are in progress or threatened. As yesterday's decision by the FBU showed, the union is determined to press ahead with further strikes. As a result, negotiations have broken down and we are in deadlock.
	"The Fire Service is not like any other industry. The public cannot be put at risk on a weekly or monthly basis. It is essential to resolve the dispute.
	"We all want to see a resumption of talks. The employers have rightly put forward a fully costed proposal on pay and modernisation based on Sir George Bain's agenda. This is the only basis for negotiations. But the Government have to be prepared. The FBU may continue to refuse to discuss modernisation. So, it is against this background that I have concluded that the time has come to take a further step to help break the deadlock.
	"As a matter of priority, I will introduce legislation in the public interest to take new powers of direction over the Fire Service. These powers will, it is to be hoped, bring a new and much-needed sense of reality into future negotiations.
	"I will discuss through the usual channels, including the devolved Administrations, the best way forward to introduce this legislation. I will draw on provisions in the Fire Services Act 1947, which were repealed in 1959. Those provisions allowed the Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and conditions of the Fire Service. In addition, we will propose powers to direct the Fire Service on its objectives and its use of facilities and assets.
	"Legislation in itself will not end the dispute, but it is prudent to take these powers to use if necessary to help reach an agreement.
	"The current strike is due to end on Thursday morning. I hope that the FBU will sit down again and negotiate with the Fire Service employers. But for the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position will not change. We will continue to implement the Government's part of the Bain agenda. We will continue to resist these strikes. And we will continue to do all that we can to protect public safety—especially at a time when there is a heightened level of terrorist threat and the Armed Forces are under increasing pressure from competing demands.
	"Mr Speaker, it will take some weeks to put in place the legislation and the discussions and consultation I have proposed today. Meanwhile, the whole House will agree that the best possible outcome is for the employers and the FBU to reach a negotiated agreement. I urge the FBU to call off further strikes and get back to the negotiating table".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating yet another Statement on the fire fighters' situation. While I and the House appreciate the courtesy which is extended to us and the information which is brought to us on a regular basis, it is becoming wearisome for everyone. As I and the Minister have said, it is about time the matter was quickly and equably resolved. It is extremely unfortunate that the fire fighters decided to step back from the talks which started at ACAS. I hope that when they return on Thursday, those talks will be renewed and reach a beneficial conclusion.
	We cannot overlook the fact that the fire fighters' job is currently being done by retained fire fighters for whom there is little reward and for whom Bain rightly says there should be proper reward based on the same pay as that given to the fire fighters. All of us believe that that must be a proper outcome at the end of the discussions, if only to acknowledge their loyalty and the service they have provided throughout the dispute. I join the Minister in thanking not only them but also our Armed Forces, who earn much less than the fire fighters and substantially less than the fire fighters would earn if they achieved the objectives they laid out at the beginning of the dispute.
	We cannot continue to rely on our Armed Forces. We know that and the country knows that. It is abundantly clear that over the next few weeks—as has been the case during the past few weeks—the attention of our Armed Forces will properly be engaged elsewhere. So in a few weeks time we may not have sufficient Armed Forces available to take over this role.
	In the situation of a possible war—but certainly of the withdrawal of many of our troops to a potential front—why will not the Government use the legislative powers they already have at their disposal to prevent further strikes? With each Statement I have asked repeatedly why the powers to seek injunctions are not being used. Each time the Minister has replied that they are under review and will be used if necessary. But nothing happens and we end up in the same situation, over and over again, of talks starting and the fire fighters then going on strike.
	What further thought is being given to using the legislation that is currently available to the Government to put a stop to these strikes? Will not the Government give thought to doing that before they start considering the value of the new legislation—or the old legislation which was taken out of the provisions of the 1947 Act but which the Deputy Prime Minister now seeks to put back in.
	We on this side of the House wish to consider very carefully whether the action proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister will be beneficial. If we think it will, we shall of course co-operate with the Government. But it will take time—more than a few weeks at the very least—before legislation that may be of use to the Government in this situation is on the table. However, there is no guarantee that even that legislation will have the slightest effect on the Fire Brigades Union, which appears hell-bent on defying every obstacle put in its way. Even if the legislation is put in place in a timely fashion, what will happen if the union still refuses to co-operate? Again, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that current legislation could be used.
	Bain's proposals have been on the table for some time now. The proposals in the interim report, which was rushed forward in an attempt to prevent further strikes before Christmas, would, as matters stand at the moment, bring a substantial extra reward to the fire fighters. But we have been told by the fire fighters that the proposals, which embrace modernisation, will bring with them substantial job losses for fire fighters—I believe a figure of 4,500 has been produced—and the closure of 150 fire stations. In the Statement, the Deputy Prime Minister makes clear that he does not believe that to be the situation. He suggests that there would be, or could be, some job losses, but without compulsory redundancies. Can the Minister give a clearer view of what he believes the implementation of Bain's proposals might mean under those circumstances?
	The cost of the dispute is becoming very substantial. I watched the Deputy Prime Minister giving evidence to the effect that he had already spent £70 million that could have been usefully used elsewhere. As he says in the Statement, the dispute is costing more than £6 million per day. But, whatever happens, at the end of the dispute there will be transitional costs for the introduction of whatever new pay scale comes about. I know that there is a real concern among local authorities—the employers—about the kind of transitional funding that will be available at that stage. I bear in mind what was said in an earlier question about the forthcoming increase in council tax. Potentially, these additional costs could add extra money to that. Can the Minister say whether or not transitional resources will be available when, it is to be hoped, we get to the end of the dispute.
	The offer from the employers has also been on the table for some time. If we are not going to get any further with ACAS, at what stage will that offer be removed and the negotiations moved back to stage one?
	I am also glad to note from the Statement that at last—I say "at last" quite heavily—the red fire engines have been made available to the Armed Forces and the retained fire fighters so that they are at least not fighting fires with one hand tied behind their backs. That is a good and useful move. I am only sorry that the point was not taken when we on this side of the House first made it and that those fire engines were not made available earlier.
	If the situation was not so tragic this would indeed be a farce. There have been repeated Statements; repeated walk-outs; repeated television appearances of the general secretary making repeated suggestions that he was rushing off to come to an agreement with ACAS; repeated withdrawals; and repeated strikes taking place one after the other. I return to what I said earlier: if the fire fighters are to seek judicial review under Section 19 of the 1947 Act, why do not the Government get in first?

Lord McNally: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As he is aware, we on these Benches have expressed our thanks and admiration to the Armed Services for carrying out a difficult job in difficult circumstances, and we do so again. We also associate ourselves with the noble Baroness's thanks to the retained fire fighters.
	We have supported the Government in seeking a fair and realistic settlement to the dispute and we support the Government in giving priority to public safety. But why is it that the famous gibe of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the last days of the Major administration—"a government in office but not in power"—keeps running through my head? The Statement has all the hallmarks of a panic measure rather than a considered strategy.
	That is not surprising because, during the course of the dispute, I can think of at least seven Ministers who have been wheeled out a various times to try to explain government policy. Sometimes the Government have been loftily saying that the dispute is a matter for the unions and employers; at other times they have intervened in minute detail. Instead of a clear strategy for industrial relations and public service pay, we have the usual cocktail of bluster and panic from Mr Prescott. Will the Minister tell the House which Minister in the Government is ultimately responsible for industrial relations policy? The bitter tone of the Statement suggests that the Deputy Prime Minister is not the man to do that job.
	Can we be told whether there is a coherent policy towards the public sector, or is each dispute to be handled by a separate department on an ad hoc basis? Would the Minister now care to answer a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, before Christmas. Have the Government a norm for public sector pay settlements?
	Is this emergency legislation part of the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999? If not, how is that review progressing? What kind of parliamentary timetable do the Government envisage for the legislation? The Minister referred to discussions through the usual channels, but will it be rushed through both Houses in 24 hours? Is it that kind of emergency legislation?
	For five years the Government have been living off the fat of the Thatcher industrial relations reforms without giving any thought to a long-term industrial relations strategy. Warnings of a need for urgency have been pooh-poohed and patronised. Ideas such as compulsory and binding arbitration have been sneered at—again today, I notice, by Mr Prescott—or dismissed out of hand. It is not to dodge the issue to say that we would not have started from here. We are here because the Government stuck their head in the sand for too long about changes in public sector unions and in our industrial relations climate.
	So do the Government intend to use the breathing space between now and the introduction of emergency legislation to make further proposals themselves? Or is this the domestic equivalent of sending in the weapons inspectors? For example, as the noble Baroness asked, will the Government still finance transitional funding for modernisation if a deal can be struck? Surely, at this stage it is absolute madness to withdraw the offer of funding. Will the Minister clarify that point?
	There is still a good deal of goodwill among the public sector unions for modernisation based on multi-year pay deals. The latest edition of PSM, the public service magazine, states that,
	"they guarantee to some extent stable industrial relations where successfully negotiated. Where linked to structural reform, they have also often successfully addressed major staff concerns and provided a greater degree of certainty. Members have largely welcomed them".
	We on these Benches urge the FBU to return to the negotiating table. We believe that a multi-year, structural-reform, modernising pay deal is what will finally settle this dispute, probably around the ACAS table.
	The Government may well get their emergency legislation, but if they go down that road and if I were Mr Prescott, I would also keep the telephone number of the Official Solicitor handy.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her generally supportive comments on the Government's position. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, at least for his comments, if not entirely for their content. The noble Lord is entitled to take the view that he does, but I shall try to deal with the various points that have arisen in response to the Statement by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
	The first point to bang home is, yes, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It is a rather wearying process. We come to the Dispatch Box week in, week out, to explain the latest twist and turn in the unfolding of this most unfortunate and regrettable industrial dispute. However, I do not think that anyone can question the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to ensuring that another place and this House are kept fully informed of developments "straight from the heart", as it were. The way in which the Deputy Prime Minister has conducted himself throughout this dispute does him great credit.
	The noble Baroness repeated the question that she has asked from time to time with regard to the possible war, the withdrawal of troops and using other legislative powers at the Government's disposal. The decision to seek an injunction rests with the Attorney-General—it is his decision alone. The matter is rightly kept under constant review; the Attorney-General is, of course, kept informed of developments and is no doubt well aware of the current situation.
	The noble Baroness asked what would be the impact on the current dispute of the legislation we are considering and proposing to introduce. It is our hope that the FBU and its members realise that further strikes are futile. We have underlined that point by bringing forward our proposals. If, when the Secretary of State had decided on a settlement, perhaps using those powers at some future point, FBU members remained on strike, we should have to review our options and give further thought to what we might wish to do. I repeat the comment made on many occasions by the Deputy Prime Minister that nothing has been ruled out.
	A number of references have been made to the Bain proposals. The noble Baroness referred to what I believe to be a calumny; namely, the often repeated message from the FBU that there will be four and half thousand job losses and that 150 fire stations will be closed. The references to job cuts and station closures are entirely false and misleading information. I can only repeat that, as Sir George Bain said, there is no need for any compulsory redundancies. Modernisation is about improving the way in which the service works to ensure that the health and safety of our nation is preserved. It is about saving lives, not costing lives; it is not the situation as portrayed by the FBU during the course of the dispute.
	Obviously, we continue to be concerned about the cost of the dispute. In his Statement today, the Deputy Prime Minister has spelt out exactly what that cost is. We said that any pay deal must pay for itself over the next three years. That is very much in line with what Sir George Bain concluded in his recommendations. Also in line with the Bain proposals, we acknowledged, at the time those proposals were brought forward, that some transitional funding might be needed and that we should examine sensible proposals to fund the transitional period. It is obvious that, the more we spend on fire cover, as a product of that there may well be some squeeze on the transitional funding; but we remain committed to the principals put forward by Bain and to the way in which we see the Bain proposals being rolled out.
	The noble Baroness raised a question about the employers' offer. She commented that it had been on the table for some time. That is quite right—too long. Our belief is that this dispute should have been settled a long time ago. She asked at what stage the offer would be withdrawn. This has to be a matter for the employers. They have rightly said that it is unreasonable to expect them to negotiate against the backdrop of a strike or strike threat. But that offer remains on the table; it is for the employers to seek agreement with the FBU. We hope that once the latest 48-hour stoppage is concluded the FBU will return to negotiation and "talk, rather than walk"—the second has too often been the case over the past few weeks.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, properly raised the question of responsibility for industrial relations policy. In this situation, the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the fire service and for handling and prosecuting this dispute. Appropriate arrangements are in place for collective discussions on industrial relations issues across Whitehall, but in this instance it is the DPM who is in charge. We should do all we can to provide him with support in ensuring that the dispute is brought to a speedy end.
	With regard to emergency legislation, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we shall consult through the usual channels and with the appropriate bodies. Legislation will, we predict, take weeks rather than months. It is not our intention to "bounce" this House or another place, but to introduce it in a timely fashion, taking account, as one properly should, of the usual channels and the usual procedures. But it is important legislation. As I said at the outset, it underlines our commitment to ensuring that no one is under any illusion as to our determination and resolve in bringing this dispute to a timely end.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether the Government have a norm for public sector pay settlements. The FBU's negotiating position remains that it wants a 40 per cent increase for fire fighters and a 50 per cent increase for control room staff. All that I can say relates to that. An increase of that magnitude would obviously have an enormous knock-on effect and would destabilise our economy and the economic future of this country. We cannot agree to that approach. I hope that the FBU sees the sense of what we are saying and that it will return to the negotiating table. That must be the hope of everyone in this House. It is certainly the Government's firm resolve.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his common-sense approach to this difficult issue is much preferred to the declaration of war issued by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats today? Is it right that all hope of resuming arbitration is out of the question? The Minister has inferred that the Fire Brigades Union will see sense; but is he aware that it is important that the Government assert clearly the possibility that this very grave dispute will be settled if the unions and its members see common sense?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support on this. We have been grateful to all sides of your Lordships' House, who, to date at least, have given the Government fulsome support in their position. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we are looking for an injection of common sense within the FBU leadership. Sadly, that has not been displayed. It is greatly to be regretted. I hope that the FBU considers what has been said today very carefully; that it rethinks the issue; considers the position of its members, who must be more than frustrated and wondering how events will turn next; and return to the negotiating table. The machinery is in place. More than a month ago, the FBU welcomed the opportunity to put its case in front of ACAS. But there have been talks about talks, and so far the FBU has not moved on the issue.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on, at last, having proposed to do something. It is difficult to assess objectively the value of what they propose to do. We have no idea other than that there will be a series of emergency directions. Be that as it may, the measures may or may not resolve the dispute, which has hardened, largely through the ineptitude of the Government, who did not know how to deal with it.
	As usual, the fundamental question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who rightly said that the Government are floating along—it is not quite how he said it—on the coat-tails of Lady Thatcher, and had not really extended the relevant concept of law to deal with the situation that has now arisen. That leads to the fundamental problem: shall we deal piecemeal, ad hoc, with every dispute by emergency legislation, in consultation with the Attorney- General and the usual channels; or shall we settle down and try to establish a general concept of law to deal with disruption of public services by collective industrial action? I respectfully suggest that a piecemeal approach using emergency legislation must serve to deal with an emergency. It affords no substitute for a stable system of law established by Parliament.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I greatly respect the point of view that the noble Lord has put forward in this regard—he has expressed the view consistently. I know that he has played a part in the past in advising on industrial relations law and has sought to introduce legislation that no doubt gives effect to some of the points that he makes. But, this Government have been acting in a concerted way throughout the dispute. They have respected the negotiating machinery that is properly in place. They have reminded the unions and the employers of the importance of the positions that they occupy. I cannot agree with the assertion that we are, "floating along on the coat-tails of Lady Thatcher". We have led where it has been appropriate and right for us to do so. We have made clear and public our position on the dispute and how it has been prosecuted by the FBU. Today's further Statement and the clear lead by the Deputy Prime Minister underline that exact point.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in my experience—and I have been around this place for a long time—if the Statement that he has just repeated had been made by a Tory Minister, there would have been howls of anger and dissent from the Labour Benches? The Government, in respect of a particular dispute, are using a huge hammer to crack what could be a small nut. To take control of the Fire Service nationally and to seek to impose their will on a trade union is not what the Labour Party is about. It effectively removes the right to strike from a democratically elected union in this country.
	Is that really what he wants? Is that the Government's intention? If that is so—and, believe me, it is so, because he said it would be futile for the unions to strike—every other public service union is under threat if it takes strike action to gain what it considers a legitimate settlement. I am most disappointed in the Statement. We are supposed to have a new Labour Government; but it is becoming clear to some that we have an anti-Labour Government.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it will not come as a great surprise to your Lordships that I cannot possibly agree with a word that the noble Lord has spoken. I do not think it is right that we should have a situation where an important, major public service such as the Fire Service acts irresponsibly and undermines public safety. It is not part of the role of any government, not least a Labour one, to do anything to undermine public safety. That is why we have adopted a firm position in this dispute.
	That says nothing about removing the right to strike. We fully respect that the fire-fighters' union has that right to exercise. But it also has a responsibility to conduct industrial relations in a way that does credit to trades unions generally, and to its union in particular. At the moment, it is hard to see that that is the case. I simply use this opportunity to urge it to return to the negotiating table and to use what has been put before it on the table in the past as a reasonable basis on which to formulate a settlement. That would be in the interests of FBU members and in the greater interests of the public. It would do the Fire Service great credit, too.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is not the FBU very likely to interpret today's Statement and the legislative provision it contains as simply a threat designed to get it back to the negotiating table? Can the Minister make it clear that the Government intend to go ahead with the legislation whether or not the FBU comes back to the negotiating table?
	Secondly, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is not right to use the occasional dispute with one union as a basis for legislation that should apply to vital public services generally.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before any confusion about legislation enters into this discussion, let me make it plain that what we are suggesting today relates simply to the Fire Service. To pick up the noble Lord's earlier point about threats, it is not, in our view, a threat. We are simply making our intention plain so that the dispute moves on and the FBU is under no illusions as to the strength of the Government's commitment to their position. I hope, as I said earlier, that the FBU reflects calmly and clearly on what has been said today and takes the sensible step—the step that everybody in your Lordships' House wants it to take—of returning to talks later this week when the current 48-hour strike concludes.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that some of the statements being made here today are somewhat far from the mark? I am old enough to remember the Conservative government's 1970 employment legislation and experienced the raft of anti-trade union legislation enacted in Margaret Thatcher's time. However, we have a Labour Government who have been extremely patient and are not attacking the public sector workers. The situation would not necessarily happen elsewhere because other public sector workers, or most of them, would not require the Army to do their job. That is a very different situation. Given this crisis, and a possible war in Iraq, the Labour Government are taking a stance against the Fire Brigades Union that is sensible in view of the safety precautions that this country needs.
	The people of this country are the Government's responsibility. The Government have taken this measure with a view to bringing collective bargaining closer; it might also be a spur to bringing about a settlement. I do not see it as extreme, compared with measures taken by previous Tory administrations.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has far more experience of industrial relations than I, and I take great encouragement from what he has said. The Government have been patient and it would be understandable if that patience began to evaporate. We have taken a clear trajectory on this and have been measured in our response, but public safety must be paramount. We must do all that we can to ensure that there is proper and adequate fire cover in our nation. If what we propose today helps us establish that in the future, it is a valuable step. I am sure that that is what we will be seeking to do. We remain patient and diligent, and we hope that at the end of this dispute, there will be a return to cooler and calmer thinking, particularly on the part of the FBU, on the way in which the union has conducted itself throughout the dispute. We want to get the FBU back to the negotiating table to sort this out.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in the mid-1980s, as a Home Office Minister, I had responsibility for chairing the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. It was a useful body that brought together the Government, the Fire Brigades Union, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and others. As far as I know, it still exists. It was not a particularly easy ride. Nevertheless, it was a useful forum and I hope that when the Government consider the form of the emergency legislation that they will bring before both Houses, they will bear it in mind that that forum is a useful way of making at least some progress even if it gives Ministers a hard time, as in my case.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I come to the Dispatch Box with a confession. From time to time I was an official on behalf of the local authority side servicing the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. I may, in an earlier life, have been partly responsible for giving the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, a hard time. I make no apology for that—I was doing my job.
	Of course such organisations all have a value. What is important is to get people round the table to talk and sort these matters out. Anything that can be done to speed up that process will be welcomed by all sides.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, does the Minister agree that the employers have not been mentioned this afternoon? As I look around these Benches, I see many colleagues who have fought long and hard all their life for working people. I detect, from my knowledge of them, that they have always tried to put out fires—in the industrial sense—rather than light them. But it takes two to tango, and although my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, is one of us—he has worn the shirt and has been there—and I applaud him, as have other noble Lords, I have to say that the condemnation of the employers in earlier days has not been mentioned this afternoon.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work in the industrial relations field. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, he has a great deal of experience. The employers have a difficult job, and the Government see it as their role to ensure that they are well supported. Reviewing the legislation will go some way to stiffening their position and giving them extra support. That will be an important objective of those measures.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, there is no doubt in my mind that the employers have not done their job in this instance, and have not done it for 25 years. This is only the second serious dispute in the Fire Service for 26 years, and, if what the Deputy Prime Minister says that he will do comes to pass, it will be the second occasion on which a settlement has been forced on the fire fighters. I do not want to go over the past but I hope that we will learn some lessons from it. Many ill conceived steps have been taken on both sides.
	When the dispute is settled, there will be considerable bitterness and low morale among the workforce. I wish to be satisfied that the new arrangements for managing the Fire Service have some prospect of working. We had a formula that worked for 26 years before coming to an end; the employers should have done something about it six years ago but they did nothing.
	A second question, which arose on an earlier question, is the relationship between local government fund raising for themselves and the contribution of central government. I do not expect my noble friend to have the answer, but it would be interesting to know the proportion of local government expenditure supplied by the Government today and the proportion supplied immediately after the ending of the community charge.
	Thirdly, I suggest that someone in government should have the task, across the public service, of trying to see where industrial fires may break out. You can see them coming, and no government since the war have found a way of dealing effectively with the public services, in which nearly all disputes take place.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever on these matters, the noble Lord speaks with tremendous knowledge, gained from many years of personal involvement and commitment. His comments are helpful. I repeat that of course we must do all we can to ensure that the employers are in a position to be as effective as they should be and need to be. These are necessarily complex relations between employers, the service involved and the Government. That is one reason why a review of the current situation has been undertaken. I think there will be a clear route map outlined from our intention to take additional powers so that we do not end up in a situation similar to the one we are currently in. We need to do what we can as a government to ensure that public services are well run and well organised and that disputes over wages, pay and conditions can be easily resolved. We hope that the changes we propose can aid that process.

Victoria Climbie Inquiry

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Victoria Climbie inquiry. The report of the inquiry is being published today. It is now available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for your agreement that Victoria's parents should have had advance access to a copy of the report.
	"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I established the inquiry in April 2001 under the chairmanship of Lord Laming, formerly the Chief Inspector of Social Services. We are both extremely grateful to Lord Laming and his advisers for producing a searching and detailed report and recommendations.
	"Words in a report can never be enough for a family whose child has died in such terrible circumstances. I am grateful to Mr and Mrs Climbie for seeing me last week and allowing me to express, on behalf of the House and the country, the sorrow we all feel at the death of their beloved daughter, Victoria. Anyone who has had the privilege to meet Mr and Mrs Climbie cannot fail to be struck by their quiet dignity in the face of what happened to Victoria.
	"I hope the report provides them with some comfort as it seeks to answer the questions any parent would ask. What exactly happened? What went so wrong? What needs now to change to prevent services that are supposed to keep children from harm failing in the way they failed Victoria so badly and so repeatedly?
	"Lord Laming's inquiry lasted more than a year. His report runs to some 400 pages. We will study its 108 recommendations with care. Today I will outline the inquiry's findings and the Government's initial views. We will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on children at risk which we intend to publish this spring.
	"Victoria Climbie was part of a large, loving family living in the Ivory Coast. Her parents had agreed she could come to Europe in order to be educated. This was not about giving Victoria away; it was about giving Victoria an opportunity. All they wanted, as any parent would, was for their daughter to have the best education. Instead, she suffered the worst cruelty.
	"Victoria arrived in Britain with her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, in April 1999. Within a year she was dead—murdered by the people who had taken the principal responsibility for caring for her: Kouao, and her boyfriend, Carl John Manning. Both are now serving life imprisonment.
	"The cruelty experienced by Victoria before her death is the stuff of nightmares. Manning told the trial that Kouao would strike Victoria daily with a shoe, a coat hanger and a wooden spoon. She would hit her toes with a hammer. Victoria's blood was found on Manning's football boots. He admitted hitting her with a bicycle chain.
	"Victoria's final days, in the depths of winter, were spent living and sleeping in a bath in an unheated bathroom, in her own urine and faeces, bound hand and foot in a bin bag.
	"Despite valiant efforts on the part of NHS staff, Victoria died of hypothermia, after months of abuse, on 25th February 2000 at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington. She had 128 separate injuries to her body. She was just eight years old.
	"It is a shocking but sad truth that around 80 children a year die from abuse or neglect. While a civilised society must do everything it can to protect children, sadly a few adults will always manage to perpetrate abuse, not least because those who do are, by definition, secretive and manipulative.
	"What makes Victoria's case so appalling, however, is that while the unspeakable abuse she suffered took place in secret, behind closed doors, Victoria herself was never hidden from the authorities and the agencies empowered by Parliament to protect children.
	"Victoria was known to three housing authorities and involved with four social services departments in Brent, Ealing, Enfield and Haringey. Despite receiving allegations that she had been abused, none of the councils even managed to undertake a proper assessment of her needs. Social services did nothing to help her.
	"Victoria was known to two separate child protection teams of the Metropolitan Police. Despite being told she had probably been deliberately harmed, they failed to investigate the alleged crime. The police services did nothing to help her.
	"Victoria was referred to the specialist Tottenham Child and Family Centre managed by the NSPCC. Despite marking her case as urgent, they failed to take any action to see Victoria. The NSPCC centre did nothing to help her.
	"Victoria was admitted to two different NHS hospitals—the Central Middlesex and North Middlesex. Despite suffering scalding to her head and face and other evidence that staff saw of beatings and abuse, she was discharged and returned to her abusers. The health service did nothing to help her.
	"Between April 1999 and February 2000, on more than one dozen occasions the relevant services had the opportunity to intervene to protect Victoria Climbie. More than 12 times in 10 months they failed to do so. This was not a failing on the part of any one service. It was a failing on the part of every service.
	"As Lord Laming says:
	"The extent of the failure to protect Victoria was lamentable. Tragically it required nothing more than basic good practice being put into operation . . . doing the basic things well saves lives . . . Victoria died because those responsible for her care adopted poor practice standards".
	Lord Laming considers that the current statutory framework for child protection set out in the Children Act 1989 is basically sound. I take little comfort from that. Sound legislative policy and guidance is useless unless we can be sure that it is implemented effectively and consistently.
	"Those who take on the work of protecting children at risk of deliberate harm face a difficult and challenging task. As Neil Garnham QC told the inquiry:
	"Hundreds of children benefit every year from efficient and timely intervention by social workers, police officers and hospital staff. We would do children like Victoria no favours if we demonise entire professions as we seek to understand and remedy the weaknesses and deficiencies highlighted by a single case".
	"But while public servants should enjoy our support, they should not expect our excuses. There were failures at every level and by every organisation which came into contact with Victoria Climbie. There were problems with staffing and with resources. Haringey Council was spending substantially less than the SSA it had been allocated for children and families. Brent Council was spending just half of what it had been allocated.
	"Lord Laming rightly describes as breathtaking the unwillingness of some of the most senior people in these agencies to accept that they were in any way accountable for these failures. It is his concern with this lack of accountability that leads Lord Laming to recommend change through the creation of new national and local structures for services for children and families. Lord Laming rejects proposals to separate child protection services, but calls for better co-ordination from top to bottom.
	"It is an all too familiar cry. In the past few decades there have been dozens of inquiries into awful cases of child abuse and neglect. Each has called on us to learn the lesson of what went wrong. Indeed, there is a remarkable consistency both in what went wrong and what is advocated to put it right. Lord Laming's report goes further. It recognises that the search for a simple solution or a quick fix will not do. It is not just national standards or proper training or adequate resourcing or local leadership or new structures that are needed. It is all these things.
	"In recent years there has been a renewed effort to improve safeguards for children: the Protection of Children Act 1999; the Care Standards Act 2000; programmes such as Quality Protects and Sure Start; and new work on systems for identifying, referring and tracking children at risk.
	"Alongside the fuller response we will include with the Green Paper in the spring, I can tell the House that there are important steps which I intend to take immediately. First, the inquiry is highly critical of the local services that failed Victoria. Since her death, each has been subject to review. Some have been restructured. Some staff have been disciplined, others dismissed. In the light of the Laming report it will be for each employer to determine if further action is necessary against individuals, including those in senior managerial positions. In the meantime, the Home Secretary and I are asking the inspectorates responsible for health, police and social services to undertake further joint monitoring of these local services in north London to provide independent assurances that standards are improving.
	"Secondly, the inquiry concludes that in all agencies there was a low priority given to the task of protecting children. The Home Secretary has made child protection a priority through the national Policing Plan. He has asked chief constables to review force child protection units and consider how to action the recommendations of the report and reflect them in their policing plans.
	"Additionally, I am today writing to all chief executives in local health services and local authorities emphasising their duties towards vulnerable children and the need to reflect them in their budget decisions. Social services budgets will rise by an average of 6 per cent in real terms in each of the next three years. NHS budgets will rise by nearly 7 per cent. Extra resources should help employ more staff, including an extra 5,000 social workers, at a time when applications for social work courses, which fell for almost a decade, are now rising.
	"Thirdly, the report highlights inadequacies in the training of frontline professionals. Training for police officers is already being reviewed and we will ensure that Lord Laming's recommendations are fully taken on board. Social work training is also being fundamentally overhauled. From September, a new three-year social work degree will be introduced to raise the status and standards of the profession. It will focus on assessment, communication and working with other professionals—the areas where Victoria was so badly let down. The Home Secretary and I also intend to ask the professional bodies responsible for training police, social services and NHS staff in child protection to oversee a review of training needs including interagency training.
	"Fourthly, the report highlights the failure of agencies to adhere to common standards in the care of children. I believe that the Laming report re-emphasises the need for new national standards to which all local health and social services can work. I can tell the House that I intend to publish the first part of those standards—covering the care of children in hospital—next month and the remaining standards by the end of the year.
	"Fifthly, the report says there was confusion about guidance on aspects of child protection. Within the next three months, I intend to secure the replacement of all the existing local guidance with new, shorter, clearer guidance which will reach every one of the 1 million professional staff dealing with the safeguarding of children. I also intend to simplify the wider range of Children Act guidance. It currently runs to over 1,500 pages. It covers 15 volumes. Some of it is out of date. Our intention is to reduce it by 90 per cent, to make it available in a single volume, and to update it on a regular basis.
	"Sixthly, over half of Lord Laming's recommendations are aimed at correcting repeated failures in basic professional practice. We are today issuing a checklist of these recommendations. Police, health and social services are being asked to guarantee that, within the three-month deadline demanded by Lord Laming, these basic elements of good professional practice are in place.
	"Seventhly, the report says there was a fundamental failure to translate good intentions into good practice. The Home Secretary and I have therefore asked the relevant inspectorates to supplement their planned joint inspections with a new programme of further visits to verify that these elements of good practice are being implemented, particularly where there are concerns about local services. We will also consider whether further powers are needed to intervene earlier and more effectively.
	"Finally, Victoria needed services that worked together. Instead, the report says, there was confusion and conflict. Down the years inquiry after inquiry has called for better communication and co-ordination. Neither exhortation nor legislation has proved adequate. The only sure way to break down the barriers between these services is to remove the barriers altogether.
	"Fundamental reform is now needed to pool knowledge, skills and resources to provide more seamless local services for children. I am, therefore, today inviting health and social services and other local services to become the first generation children's trusts. These pilot children's trusts will mean local services for children are run through a single local organisation. We will explore a range of models including children's trusts that could be led by local authorities and others that could be established as new public interest organisations drawing in the expertise of the community, private and voluntary sectors. In future, services for children must be centred not around the interests of any organisation but around the interests of the child. Nothing—no existing organisation, no existing structures—should be allowed to stand in the way.
	"We will consider Lord Laming's recommendations for further structural changes in the Green Paper.
	"These reforms cannot be the end of the matter. If some good is to come out of this tragedy, lasting change must come out of it, too. Lord Laming is determined that that is what should happen. The whole Government share his determination.
	"Victoria's parents asked for nothing more for their daughter than the opportunity of a better life in our country. I am deeply sorry that she did not get that simple chance. We cannot undo the wrongs done to Victoria Climbie. We can, though, seek to put right for others what so fundamentally failed for her. That is what Lord Laming's report demands. It is what the Government are determined to do. I commend it to the House".
	My Lords, that completes the Statement.

Earl Howe: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, I begin, if I may, by associating myself fully with his expressions of appreciation and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for all that he has done to produce his report. Those of us who have the good fortune to know the noble Lord will understand what an excellent choice he was to chair this extremely difficult and sensitive inquiry, with his immense experience of social services matters.
	The death of Victoria Climbie would have been an appalling tragedy in any circumstances, but had it occurred as the result of the failings of one or even two public servants it might not have been the trigger for a public inquiry. However, the injuries of that little girl were known to four social services departments, three housing departments, two specialist child protection teams, the Metropolitan Police, two hospitals, plus a specialist child management centre run by the NSPCC. That catalogue tells us on its own why this inquiry was necessary and why the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was absolutely right to use the uncompromising language that he did and to ensure that the proceedings of the inquiry were in the fullest sense conducted in public. I congratulate him on a conscientious, thorough and hard-hitting report. It makes chilling reading. His conclusions merit the most urgent attention.
	During the past 30 years, there have been more than 30 inquiries into the deaths of children known to social services. None of those inquiries has had any effect. This report, as the Minister rightly said, has to break the mould. Every week in this country there are between one and two deaths of children at the hands of parents and carers. The group of people who run the greatest risk of a violent death are children of less than one year old. My first question to the Government is therefore this. Will they, please, publish a firm timetable for action in respect of the key recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Laming? Some 82 of the 108 recommendations in the report are, in his opinion, capable of being actioned within six months. We need to get on with it.
	I am immediately drawn to the recommendation that there must be a fundamental change, a systemic change, to the co-ordination of children's services locally. In that connection, I shall follow with great interest the formation of the children's trusts that are to be piloted. I completely agree that much more attention needs to be devoted to the training of front-line professionals, including health professionals, to the codification of standards and to the dissemination of those standards.
	However, can the Minister reassure me on what I consider to be an especially important aspect of the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Laming: accountability? We do not want to encourage a blame culture, but if things go wrong, the buck must stop somewhere. That does not simply mean a chain of accountability in line management, although that is clearly important. It also means that incompetent social workers should be held to account by a professional body, in exactly the same way as are other professions—such as doctors, nurses and lawyers.
	Do the government agree? If so, exactly how is that to be achieved? If—as I think that we all accept—we need to enhance the status of social workers, to value them, and to confer real professional responsibility on them, equally, they must expect to live by and be judged on a defined set of professional standards. The system must have teeth. We should not be content with a set of structures and reporting lines that amount to a giant talking shop and little else.
	In that context, what recommendations have been made about the need for professionals to communicate directly with the children themselves? That conspicuously did not happen in the case of Victoria Climbie, despite the fact that it was her right under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Proper communication between professionals is also vital, but how are the Government addressing the legal barriers to information sharing between professional agencies caused by the Data Protection Act 1998? That is a real issue. I should be glad to know how it is to be overcome.
	The Minister will remember our debates during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 about the need to regulate private fostering. Victoria Climbie was subject to a private fostering arrangement. It is estimated—and it can only be an estimate—that currently about 10,000 children in England and Wales are fostered privately. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of them come from West Africa.
	The Utting report highlighted the risks that those children are subject to, but nothing has been done. Will the Government now take urgent action? In the immediate term, what is being done to promote greater awareness among parents in West Africa about child abuse dangers? Is anything being done to encourage a culture of child protection among faith communities—especially in the sort of church that is popular with West African and Afro-Caribbean citizens? I believe that one such church was closely involved in this case.
	On a separate but related issue, evidence was given to the Laming inquiry about unaccompanied child refugees being placed in bed and breakfast accommodation without regard to their safety. What is to be done to address that highly undesirable state of affairs?
	I welcome much of what the Minister said about steps to be taken immediately, before the publication of the Green Paper. We on the Opposition Benches will support those and, indeed, all necessary measures, but he should bear in mind that we shall expect each programme of action to be properly resourced.
	The failure to protect Victoria Climbie was not just a failure on the part of front-line staff, it was equally a failure by senior managers of all the organisations concerned to ensure that the necessary services were properly financed and staffed. That is as much a matter of resources as it is of ensuring that accountable, in-touch managers are in place.
	Unless that happens, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will not have delivered the one thing that we all desperately want: never again should Parliament have to address the kind of catastrophic failings in our public services that so shamefully let down that poor little child.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on performing what must have been one of the most difficult jobs. His frank and moving introduction to the report is testimony to the fact that he was indeed the right person to do that difficult job.
	I also pay tribute to Victoria Climbie's parents, who throughout what must have been a harrowing process for them have displayed a quiet dignity that is humbling. Perhaps the saddest thing about the report is that little, if any, of it is new. We can go through the list of names: Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford and Victoria Climbie. Every time a report such as this is issued we return to three recurring issues: first, recognition of abuse; secondly, co-ordination and sharing of information across agencies; thirdly, the location of responsibility to act with an accountable person.
	We welcome the report's recommendation of national standards for the definition of "risk" and "harm". At present, there are about 150 different definitions of harm operated across the country by different authorities. That leads to understandable difficulties with consistency of application and confusion in staff training.
	We ought also now to consider giving children the same legal protection as adults in definitions of assault, so that abuse does not start at a low level and grow. The people who are not mentioned in the report but who are often the first to see signs of abuse are members of the public. In a culture in which it is still permissible to hit children, it is often difficult for them to make a distinction about what is abuse and what is not. That is a serious matter that the Government should consider.
	The report is a damning indictment of children's services in England. The Government should therefore press ahead without delay to appoint a children's commissioner for England to ensure consistency of services across areas.
	Staffing and staff turnover played a huge part in this case. One in 10 children's social services jobs is vacant; and one in eight social workers leaves the profession every year. In their response to the report, the Government should consider how to enable experienced social workers to stay in the front line and use their experience to protect children.
	While the report was being compiled, much has been done by professional bodies, which are as horrified as anyone else at what happened. They have been considering what lessons can be learned by using the expertise within area child protection committees—especially by the involvement of general practitioners and teachers in such multi-disciplinary teams.
	Pilots, such as the new model for delivering children's services, called Serving Children Well, which has been developed by the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation, the Association of Directors of Social Services and education authorities, are beginning to prove that they may be the way to get around the central problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Laming—that child protection will always be the product of different agencies working together. Even if children's trusts are set up, their constituent parts will still play a separate role in looking after children. I therefore welcome the announcement in the Statement that the Government are willing to consult such bodies on best practice.
	As noble Lords will know from our discussions during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I believe that it is high time that private fostering is at least subject to registration. I hope that the Government will implement that and institute a programme to advertise the fact through embassies and consulates to parents in the countries that are most likely to be involved.
	Finally, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that 82 of the 109 recommendations can be introduced immediately, because they concern the development of good practice—ensuring that good practice that has already been identified is spread. I hope that the Government will put their energy and resources into that, rather than into a process of reform that may simply lead to a new, different administrative muddle.
	Today is not the day to give this report the full consideration that it most certainly needs. I assure the Minister that when we have time to do that he can count on the full support of these Benches who, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, believe that this little girl was failed and that no child should ever go through the hell that she went through.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for their constructive and very serious responses to the Statement.
	First, I echo their tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. He was an excellent choice to chair the inquiry not just because of his previous experience as a very distinguished chief inspector of social services but simply because of the nature of his experience and his robustness. Shining through the nearly 400 pages of the report is an extremely robust procedure in which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, uncovers almost everything, if not everything, that there is to uncover. He subjected those who gave evidence—rightly, in my view—to stringent and rigorous tests as regards the questions that they were required to answer. The result is a very thorough report indeed as regards what happened to Victoria and as regards the almost daily and step-by-step disasters that occurred in the handling of the case. Victoria's case was considered by many different professionals, only one of whom needed to do the job properly for Victoria's life to have been saved.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was right to refer to the number of inquiries that have been held into similar tragic cases in the past 20 or 30 years. I certainly agree with him that we must learn the lessons arising not just from Victoria's case but also from all those other inquiries. If the common theme running through almost all those inquiries is an inability on the part of professional people to undertake the basic tasks correctly, we must ask why that is so.
	The noble Lord makes it clear that it is not the legal framework that is at fault but rather professionals who were not doing their jobs properly—for example, failing to write notes of meetings and failing to have an action plan which made clear which member of staff was responsible for taking actions forward. I refer also to a failure of supervision; supervisors who were seemingly unable to give effective supervision and support to fieldworkers; and a complete failure to monitor cases to help fieldworkers—who we all know come under a great deal of pressure—with proper advice.
	We must learn lessons from the report. I say to the noble Earl and to the noble Baroness that we shall implement speedily the recommendations that can be implemented speedily. We shall replace the plethora of existing guidance to obtain uniformity. We shall reduce it to an appropriate number of pages so that one can expect workers in the field to understand fully what is being asked of them. We require all the services involved to assure us within three months that the basics of good practice are being followed. That will be followed up by spot checks. In the mean time, we shall look very carefully at all the recommendations to inform the Green Paper that we shall produce in the spring.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of training. We must learn lessons in that regard in respect of individual professions. Let us be clear that this matter does not concern just social workers, it also concerns police officers and the National Health Service. The National Health Service does not come out of the report well. There were failures in both hospitals. We must look carefully at the training of individual professions, but alongside that we must ensure that that training covers the integrated and collaborative approach that is required between members of different professions.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly raised a number of points about accountability. The General Social Care Council provides the opportunity to ensure that the professional regulation of social workers is of a high order. But I have to say to the noble Earl that it is very important that the buck does not stop at the level of the individual practitioner. I do not exaggerate the position when I say that there was almost a breathtaking unwillingness on the part of some senior people in some of the authorities to accept their own responsibilities and accountability. Although I agree that it is right for individual practitioners to be subject to disciplinary, and professional disciplinary, action where appropriate, the lesson that I take from this is that senior people—people responsible for the organisations that we are discussing—must accept their own responsibilities for this matter. To leave field officers without proper procedures, proper supervision and proper support is inexcusable.
	I agree with the noble Earl's comments about communication with children. One of the tragedies of Victoria's case was—I refer to all the contacts that were made with the different statutory agencies—the very limited time that was spent talking to Victoria herself. We must learn lessons from that.
	We shall consider the issue of information services and the disclosure of information. But I have to say that disclosure of information without consent is permitted under the Data Protection Act if it is necessary to protect the vital interests of the subject. Some statutory agencies are in my judgment misreading what they are allowed to do under the law. But clearly we need to give proper advice to those authorities.
	The noble Earl and the noble Baroness mentioned fostering. I understand the arguments in favour of further legislation. There is legislation, but is it sufficient and are local authorities doing what they need to do? We know that the situation is patchy. We shall review the matter and embrace it within our Green Paper.
	As regards finance and staff, I do not want to denigrate the work of social workers, nor do I wish to say that they do not come under great pressure. Funding issues and workforce issues cannot be discounted. But the fact is that the evidence of the inquiry reveals an incredible amount of sloppy work undertaken by individuals which is not excused by staff or resource pressures. The great bulk of professionals involved in this area do their job properly, whatever pressures they are under.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about national standards. I welcome her support. She asked about children receiving the same legal protection as adults. There is a great difference between what might be described as reasonable chastisement by parents and abuse. In relation to the seriousness of abuse against children, one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was that the police must recognise that as being a serious crime. I am encouraged that the police force and the Metropolitan Police have very much taken that on board. I understand the point that the noble Baroness made about a children's commissioner. We shall consider that. It is important that that appointment, if it were ever to be made, should add value. The noble Baroness referred to children's trusts. I believe that voluntary organisations have a large role to play in this area. Some boundaries will always exist. It is important to ensure that children's trusts can work together with other local agencies, whether statutory or voluntary.

Lord Elton: My Lords, it is 30 years since I came into this House. Almost the first major debate with which I was concerned was on Maria Colwell, and this case is a horrific repetition.
	As summarised in paragraph 1.45 of the introduction of the report, the ignorance of the different agencies of one another's knowledge was devastating in its effect. It is reassuring therefore to hear the noble Lord say that social work degree courses will be extended for a further year, with emphasis on inter-agency work. Will similar extensions with similar emphasis be introduced for the training of the other agencies, so that they are common to all? In that connection, I mention the very laudable fact that the guidance is to be reduced by 90 per cent from 1,500 pages.
	I have brief questions on two other points. The noble Lord led with a reference to the children's trusts. Will he explain how that does not cut across what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, says in the first bullet point of paragraph 1.30 in his introduction? It states:
	"It is not possible to separate the protection of children from wider support to families. Indeed, often the best protection for a child is achieved by the timely intervention of family support services".
	What is the way round that?
	What steps are being taken to see that the operation is not focused primarily on London, the South East or even England? How is good practice to be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the extension of good practice, we very much want to work closely with the devolved administrations and will wish to keep them informed on any decisions that we make. It will then be up to them to consider what action, if any, they wish to take. If I remember correctly, we certainly took on board lessons throughout the rest of the United Kingdom from the tragic North Wales inquiry in relation to children's homes a couple of years ago.
	I cannot say that we have any particular plans to extend the length of time that other professions undertake training. However, it will clearly be necessary to ensure that the training programmes, whether they relate to the police, nurses, doctors or social workers, cover the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
	We need to think about social workers in particular. They have to undertake probably one of the most stressful jobs in the public sector, and are often subjected to a great deal of criticism. The headlines today inevitably focus around the failures of social workers, but the failures were not only theirs. The NHS failed. Those concerned with housing failed. The police failed. The NSPCC failed. We recognise that social workers need to be more professional, to come under the discipline procedures of the General Social Care Council, and need a three-year degree course to raise the stakes and their professional competence. At the same time, it is important to say to the country that the great majority of social workers do a very tough job, and I believe that they do it very well.
	The noble Lord is right to pinpoint the great problem that so much guidance has been produced, has not been kept up to date and is inconsistent. Our aim will be to produce consistent guidance in a form that people can readily follow and understand. The aim is consistency, not only between different local authority social service departments. However, I accept the point that he raises in relation to interaction with health services, the police and other public sector services.
	I understand where the noble Lord is coming from on children's trusts. There is no doubt that wherever one draws the boundary—one can cut the cake in any number of ways—there will always be a boundary issue. Although some people think that we should have a national child protection agency, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, decided against that, for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Those are relevant reasons when it comes to the local organisation of services as well.
	The advantage of children's trusts is that they will bring in a different range of services, provided by different statutory and voluntary agencies, and will lead to a more integrated approach. However, whatever way the cake is cut, boundary issues will still need to be developed. We will have to ensure that children's trusts work together with the other agencies as well.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister two brief questions. As a professional social worker, I can say that most social workers across the country are appalled by the case. We have to recognise that social workers are distressed, and would be as distressed as I am to read the report.
	Will the Minister reinforce with all his powers the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that we do not go into major structural change? That is the request of social workers across the country. I have spoken to social workers who have talked about turbulence in their work, the inability to get consistency, and being overwhelmed by documentation. I therefore express gratitude about the fact that information is going to be made consistent.
	As someone who has spent all their life against the background of childcare and children's services, I welcome children's trusts if they have the continuity to ensure that workers stay with their caseloads. Every time we have restructuring, social workers are moved from the people whom they are helping to another lot of people. Those children then have to make new relationships, and social work is all about relationships. We must have consistency and continuity as we go into any new boundaries. We must not spend a lot of time simply moving desks, but must move practice, training and professionalism.
	My second question is about ensuring that quality of service is delivered. I too am shocked about the basic issues on professional need. As we go into yet another change under the commission for social care inspection, will the Minister ensure that inspections look at quality, and that the whole inspection, working with the inspection by the Commission for Health Improvement, looks at those issues in a solid and reliable way?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I fully recognise that the great majority of social workers will be appalled by what happened. I reiterate that it is very easy to knock the social work profession, and we should be wary of doing so. Actually, the profession needs support, at the same time as a rigorous approach to minimise poor professional practice.
	I agree with the noble Baroness about the impact of major structural change. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, makes some significant proposals in terms of accountability at local level, to try to get over the problems that he identified with some area protection committees. Obviously, we will study them with great care. I fully understand the noble Baroness's point about turbulence.
	The commission for social care inspection has a major role to play. Often it will need to act in concert with the health inspectorate and the police inspectorate. We will encourage that in relation to child protection procedures. I have indicated that we will carry out spot checks, which will be jointly undertaken to make sure that the basics are done right.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question about recommendations 6, 7 and 9, which are directed towards the responsibilities of local authorities and social services. All three recommendations are, according to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, feasible within three years.
	The point is that counsellors from various departments of the authorities should work together as a committee. The board to serve that committee should be chaired by the chief executive, and a budget should be identified for the work of the committee. That appears to be an admirable and simple way of improving co-ordination. How does that tie in with the much slower process of establishing children's trusts? If a children's trust is an alternative to those committees, will it have the advantages of those committees? Those advantages are that the chief executive is the responsible reporting officer for that local authority; he is responsible to the government and to his members and he is responsible in the eyes of the Audit Commission.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an interesting question. I draw a distinction between the recommendations that the noble Lord makes in relation to the appointment of a local member committee for children and families, a management board for services to children and families and the director of children's and families services. In essence, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is making those recommendations to ensure proper accountability when different agencies are involved. I distinguish between those recommendations and the children's trusts, which essentially involve providing those services. Clearly, we will need to discuss the matter further with the noble Lord. We shall address such issues in the Green Paper, which we hope to publish later in the spring.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the establishment of the General Social Care Council. I declare an interest as its former chair, and I am a former social worker. The GSCC was established to ensure high standards and common standards in training and practice in social care, as the Minister knows. It is also charged with improving the profile of social care workers. As we heard today, that will be important in terms of recruitment if the morale of that profession is not to suffer. Does the Minister see any change in the remit of the GSCC with the establishment of children's trusts, which I am sure most noble Lords welcome? If the idea is to provide a seamless service, it would be a pity if workers were subject to different standards and expectations.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for the sterling work that she undertook in getting the General Social Care Council up and running. There is no doubting the fact that it has a very important role to play not only in upholding public safety and public standards but also in raising the status of the profession, which is vitally important. I agree with her that where one has different professions—whether they are doctors, nurses, social workers or the police—working alongside each other, within a consistent framework in relation to child protection, one needs a consistent approach towards regulation. I very much agree with her. We should encourage the GSCC to work with the other regulated bodies to ensure that that happens.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I have two quick questions for the Minister. Does he know why Brent council's spending was half what had been allocated? Is he in a position to give the House some reassurance that those members of staff who have since been dismissed will never, ever be re-employed in any way in any child-oriented agency?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that some staff have been disciplined and some have been dismissed. That will be a matter for the employing authorities to deal with. I repeat my earlier point that it is important that when the authorities concerned review the question of staff responsibility in the light of the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, they do not overlook the role of senior management in accepting its own responsibility and accountability. If one looks back over instances of failure in organisations over the years, it is striking that it is often the people at the lowest level who pay the ultimate price. That is unacceptable.
	I do not believe that I can go into the details about why Brent made the decisions about its budget. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, found failures of priority and leadership within the local authority. He found that it had a weak management structure, that there had been service reductions and that there was a lack of senior supervision and monitoring. The evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, found shows that the local authority was in many ways dysfunctional in terms of the way in which it dealt with social services. Our current aim is that, using the Social Services Inspectorate and our intervention powers, we intervene where we identify that local authorities are failing in that way.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, one of the most appalling aspects of this tragic case is that two professional people refused to visit Victoria Climbie because they were frightened of catching scabies. Will the Government place more importance on giving those concerned in such cases more training in infectious conditions of all sorts? Some people have a real fear of infectious conditions. Does the Minister agree that there should be far more control of infections? There should be more experts on call who can come in when people put their own safety in front of poor helpless little children.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. The rise in infections concerns us all, and we have a number of initiatives in place to try to reduce that. However, this is simple stuff. If there is effective collaboration between local authorities and the health service, it does not, frankly, take a great deal of organisation to ensure that the ready advice of NHS professionals on such matters is readily available—and it should be available.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question about language. I welcome his statement that there should have been much more effort to talk directly to Victoria. Victoria Climbie came from francophone west Africa, and it is reasonable to suppose that some at least of those people with whom she came into contact would have had no difficulty in speaking to her in French; I do not know whether that was the case in this instance. There must be many children who are in need of care or in danger of abuse who have little or no English. Is it possible to say with confidence that interpreting will be available in such cases to enable members of social services, hospital staff, the police and so on to converse directly with the children?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the report contains a number of instances in which social workers and other professional staff mentioned the need for an interpreter. In some cases, interpreters were present. However, this is a more fundamental issue. One of the problems is that many of the professionals involved seemed to be inhibited about talking to Victoria. That was not so much a question of language as about their professional practice. There was also professional confusion about which section of the Children Act related to Victoria at any one time. That confusion caused many problems and led to a hiatus in taking appropriate action.
	The revised guidance that we issue will need to deal with the issue of the appropriate use of the specified section of the Children Act and the issue of communicating with the children concerned. I agree with the point about translators and interpreters.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I return to the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, about accountability. Much of what the Minister said was about accountability. Some years ago, when I was the chairman of an NHS trust, I chaired a committee that was investigating the death of a patient in hospital who should never have suffered what he suffered. He was an adult, not a child. I got the most unsatisfactory answer from a senior nurse on the ward. When we asked her, "To whom do you consider yourself accountable?", she said, "I am accountable only to the General Nursing Council". If there is not in addition proper line-management accountability of the practitioners on the ground to the senior professional managers who are in charge of them, one will have many problems.
	When the Minister lays great emphasis—and I do not disagree with this—on the role of the professional bodies concerned, there must on the ground be a clear line of accountability, so that managers can deal effectively with the staff for whom they are responsible. I hope that in the further consideration of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming—and I agree with everything that has been said about him and the report—that can be taken into account.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. One should look at the report's description of what happened at the Central Middlesex Hospital and at the North Middlesex Hospital. At the Central Middlesex Hospital one had a situation where nursing notes were inadequate; some of the doctors' notes were inadequate; and there was no effort to reconcile medical differences about whether Victoria had scabies or had suffered abuse. At the North Middlesex Hospital there was no formal attempt to speak to Victoria to find out what had happened; the record keeping was poor and there was a failure to get the notes from the Central Middlesex Hospital; no thorough examination of Victoria ever took place; and when she was moved to a different ward, nurses failed to record their observations.
	The whole situation cries out for someone to be accountable. There is no doubt in my mind that, alongside getting the guidance right and getting consistency in practice, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is saying that there needs to be a clear system of accountability, so that within each organisation it is clear who is accountable. With his suggested arrangements at local level—a local member committee and a management board—he is trying to achieve accountability between the agencies so that someone can be identified as the person responsible for making it work.
	That is not easy. We shall have to look carefully at what the noble Lord recommends. But there can be no disagreement about his aim, which is to try to pin down responsibility within each organisation and, when organisations have to work together, between those organisations, so that no one can run away and say, "I was not responsible".

Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [Court officers, staff and services]:

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 2, line 7, after "(1)" insert "or transferred under Schedule 1"

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: In moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. I shall be brief. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 aim to clarify this part of the Bill and to ensure that all relevant employees are covered by the Civil Service pension scheme.
	The amendments stem from the concerns of the involved unions about the current wording of the Bill. Amendment No. 7 makes explicit that relevant staff transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department will be eligible to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS 2000) and that they will be covered by the scheme from day one of their transfer.
	Amendment No. 8 aims to ensure that the Bill covers any contracts and sub-contracts entered into. There is always anxiety among staff when transfers occur. These amendments seek to help alleviate that worry. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I can be even briefer on the matter. We on these Benches entirely support the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I cannot be quite as brief, but I shall not be too long. I add my support. The noble Baroness does the Committee and especially employees a service by tabling these amendments. We do not always see eye to eye on employment law, but today I am sure that we shall.
	Perhaps the noble Baroness will also want the Minister to place on the record some of the assurances that have been given, both in the letter that the Minister was kind enough to send to noble Lords over the Christmas period, and in the letter of 28th January that was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, a copy of which was handed to me as I came into the Chamber. Both letters are useful.
	Today is a significant day for the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, to move the amendments. Over the past 24 hours reference has been made, both on the radio and in The Times law supplement, to the fact that this may not be the last of the Lord Chancellor's empire building with regard to transfer of responsibilities. The report by Sir Andrew Leggatt is waiting hot in the wings and it looks as though tribunals—another not "unconsidered trifle"—are about to be snaffled up by this Autolycus of a Lord Chancellor.
	So any provisions which the Government implement with regard to magistrates' courts may well become a model for what might happen to tribunal property and employment rights. Therefore, we should all look carefully at the assurances given by the noble Baroness. Perhaps we shall need to return to them on Report simply to tease out some of the details, because they will undoubtedly be of future significance if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has his way.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in referring to the setting up of a department of justice, which I think was suggested today. That is a step forward towards the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of having a minister of justice. So we welcome the bringing together of factors which will make the transition to the appointment of a minister of justice instead of the Lord Chancellor that much easier.
	However, the Minister may recall that at Second Reading I raised the question of the cost of transferring pensions to the Civil Service fund. I quoted the figures which had been given to me, which indicated that the cost of transferring the employees of London magistrates' courts to the Civil Service fund was £8 million. If that figure is extrapolated, it means that the cost for the whole of England and Wales would be in the region of £100 million in legislation that was supposed to be cost neutral. Has the noble Baroness considered what I said at Second Reading and does she have any comment to make on those figures?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I hope that in responding I can reiterate the assurances that we have already provided by correspondence.
	My noble friend Lady Gibson moved her amendment very succinctly and expertly, as one would expect. I shall try to run through its exact impact and the Government's view.
	Clause 2(2) currently provides that any staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor to work in the courts would be eligible to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The effect of the amendment would be to add an express provision stating that transferred staff are eligible to join the PCSPS immediately after their transfer. I doubt whether it is necessary to add a provision to the Bill for transferred staff to join the PCSPS because, as civil servants, they would be eligible automatically for membership on transfer into the employment of the Lord Chancellor.
	Furthermore, we want to treat the pension provision for staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 2(1) and those employees transferred to the new agency under Schedule 1 distinctly. This amendment would prevent us from doing that. That is because there is a possibility that staff who transfer to the new agency on the abolition of magistrates' courts committees will remain temporarily in their present pension scheme after the date of the staff transfer to the new agency while actuarial calculations and negotiations with the relevant trades union as to the terms of transfer of pension benefits are carried out. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 provides for that eventuality. As with transferred staff, those appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 2(1) will immediately become eligible to join the PCSPS on the date of entry into the new agency.
	Amendment No. 8 would replace the word "arrangements" in Clause 2(4) with the words "contracts or sub-contracts". Again, I rather doubt whether this amendment is necessary because the word "arrangements" has a wider meaning than the word "contracts". Clause 2(4) as drafted provides the Lord Chancellor with flexibility and allows him, for example, to enter into arrangements with agencies for the provision of temporary staff or to contract out entire functions. Most arrangements would be contracts. However, there may be situations where a secondee from another government department, or perhaps even from the private sector, works for the new agency on a loan basis. Therefore, the current wording provides for a wider range of eventualities.
	It is our intention to reflect in legislation what happens in practice. Under current legislation, a distinction exists between staff in the courts employed under the Lord Chancellor's statutory powers via the Court Service and those employed under non-statutory powers. The former category includes staff employed under Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971; namely, those carrying out an administrative function within the courts.
	Other categories of staff do not fall within the meaning of "administrative". They might be security staff, enforcement staff or cleaning and catering staff. They are employed via the Court Service under the Lord Chancellor's residual non-statutory powers.
	We are obviously very aware of, and sensitive to, the concerns that the trades unions have raised about our wording on contracting out. We give an undertaking to hold further discussions with the unions, and we shall endeavour to report back to the House so that all those involved are aware of what has happened.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I thank my noble friend for giving way. I shall wait with interest to see what transpires on the further discussions that take place. I declare an interest as a pensioner with PCSU. If people, such as security guards and so on, are employed on a temporary basis to assist in the new agency, can the Minister explain how they will do so without a contract governing them to undertake such functions? So far as I am aware, any government department or agency would enter into a contract and would not simply have an arrangement.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that the term "arrangement" describes something which is temporary in nature, but there will be a contract which describes that arrangement. I am not sure that that necessarily helps the noble Lord but I believe that that is how it would work in practice.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Do I understand from the Minister that there will be sheep and goats? The sheep, who are fully employed by the Court Service or whatever replaces it, will be included in the pension scheme; the goats, who are there because they are part of a privatised service hired by the Lord Chancellor, will not receive any pension at all. Is that what the Minister is saying in a very long passage?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not believe that I said that at all. I urge the noble Lord to read very carefully what I said. I do not believe that he gave an accurate summary of what I said. I thought that I made the situation clear.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank the Minister for his interesting reply, to which I listened carefully. I thank Members of the Committee who have spoken and given support to the amendment. At present, I believe that the best thing I can do is to say that I would like to consider the answer in more detail in Hansard. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 2, line 11, after "arrangements" insert "including contracting out services to private companies"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: At this stage, this is purely a probing amendment. I tabled it during the early stages of the Bill, long before the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, tabled her more comprehensive approach to the issue.
	As I mentioned during debate on the previous amendment, it was very helpful of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to write to noble Lords over the Christmas period. Certainly with regard to my own amendment in this group, I can be brief. I tabled it so that the Minister would have the chance to place on the record some of the assurances that she gave in her letter to noble Lords over the Christmas period.
	With regard to the contracting out of services, I am very much aware that the assurances given by the noble Baroness may not go as far as one would like. I wait to hear what she says. As she is aware, we have perhaps a more open view of the contracting out of services than her noble friends may have. But my concern throughout is that, if there is privatisation of any of the services which come within the remit of the Bill, that privatisation should be appropriate. I am also concerned that the proper steps of prior consultation take place—in particular, with the judiciary and the unions.
	At this point, I thank the Public and Commercial Services Union for its helpful and constructive briefing and for taking the time and trouble to come to the House to brief my noble friend Lady Seccombe and myself. I shall leave the meat of the argument to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, in her more comprehensive amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not surprised that the noble Baroness has not chosen to elaborate on this ridiculous amendment. When she said that she had a more open mind than the Government, she really meant the opposite—that is, that she had a more backward-looking mind than the Government. I see nothing which the Lord Chancellor should do beyond what the Bill envisages at present. I ask the noble Baroness, who is usually diligent about such matters, to rethink the amendment entirely.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As this is the Committee stage, it may be convenient if I respond to the noble Lord now. As I said, I am open-minded. The amendment was tabled in order to give the Government the opportunity to put on the record the commitments that they gave to noble Lords in a letter over the Christmas break. Noble Lords who took part at Second Reading received the benefit of that letter. Other noble Lords did not necessarily do so. Perhaps a copy of the letter was placed in the Library. If so, that was good practice. I know that this particular Minister is almost always open to good practice. But, of course, members of the public do not have the opportunity to see the letter. Open government; open minded—that is me.

Lord Renton: I am very surprised at the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with whom I sometimes have the honour of agreeing, but not on this occasion. We should bear in mind that the Government who call themselves "new Labour" are far more broad-minded than old Labour used to be. On a number of occasions—I shall not cite them all—the new Labour Government have enlisted the help of private enterprise in order to perform public duties. That is all that the amendment suggests. I would have hoped that it would receive a favourable reception from the Government Front Bench.

Lord Goodhart: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 11 which stands in the name of myself, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and others. Under Section 27(3) of the Courts Act 1971, as amended by the Deregulation and Contacting Out Act 1994, the Lord Chancellor may contract out the provision of officers and staff for non-judicial functions, but under Section 27(6) the Lord Chancellor must consult with the four senior judges before contracting out any services.
	We believe that that obligation should be repeated in this Bill. If the Lord Chancellor is minded to contract out the provision of courtroom security to a private security firm—an example of what has already been contracted out—surely it is appropriate that he should consult with the senior judges. Picking up a point made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, it is increasingly clear that the Lord Chancellor can no longer be regarded as a judge and that he should take the opinion of the judges—the four designated senior judges—before he contracts out any services that otherwise would be provided by the agency.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I notified the Public Bill Office that I wanted to withdraw Amendment No. 10, so I shall not speak to it. However, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Overall the Bill has been welcomed by the relevant trade unions because it streamlines the system relating to the courts and brings in accountability where there was none before. Those points are seen as great steps forward. The single executive agency and the proposed courts' administration councils are welcomed. However, the unions have some worries about parts of the Bill relating to the management of the new systems and about contracting out.
	Contracting out is not an easy subject to understand fully and requires some cross-referencing between Acts. In this context, Clause 2 raises some queries in my mind and in the minds of the trade unions representing the employees involved. Clause 2(4) appears to allow for the expansion of contracting out and removes the requirements and safeguards that currently apply: that is, consultations that take place with the senior judiciary, as the noble Lord said.
	The Courts Act 1971, as amended in 1994, specifically provides that any proposals to contract out must be examined by four senior judges and both Houses of Parliament before any contracting out of court work can be undertaken. We cannot understand why those safeguards are being removed. The wording of the Bill appears to weaken considerably the safeguards currently surrounding contracting out and the unions involved have raised their anxieties with me and with other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall also indicated worries on this issue at Second Reading.
	The system of scrutiny that has worked well until now is an important checking mechanism. Not only does it ensure the fair administration of justice; it also maintains the independence of that justice. These amendments have been tabled to reinstate the previous provisions from the 1971 Courts Act as amended in 1994; they redress what we see as a weakening of procedures that have worked well in the past.

Lord Hylton: I hope that whichever Minister replies to this amendment will answer fully the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the previous amendment; namely, what is the real level of costs in transferring such staffs from their present employers to the Civil Service scheme and why should it be so costly to transfer their pensions? Those questions were not answered at all by the previous reply from the Government. I hope they will be answered now.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. It seems to me that the Government may have in mind reducing the cost by making more and more employees of the Court Service part of a contracted out service where pensions would not apply to them. That was the reason for my previous question. Putting two points together, is it intended, for example, that all court ushers should be part of a contracted out service? Or the office staff, or the listing officer? So many important functions in the courts are carried out at the moment by people who are fully part of the administration.
	To cut costs it would be tempting for the Government to say that they will transfer to the Civil Service pension as full-time employees those who have some judicial function to perform or who have to exercise a judicial discretion, according to the terms of subsection (5) of the clause. That would refer to a limited class of people—perhaps court clerks, but not many below that level. It is possible, it seems to me, that employees will lose considerable rights as a result of this clause.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before I refer to the substance of the amendments I owe the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, an apology for not addressing his point on costs. I did not have the figures to hand and still do not. I can refer him to the Explanatory Notes at paragraph 290 which gives a broad outline of costs. It says:
	"The current cost of running the magistrates' courts is £435m per annum".
	Our intention is to ensure that there is a more than adequate resource for the new service. It is perhaps worth putting on the record what was expressed in correspondence on this point by Yvette Cooper, the Minister responsible for the Bill in another place. The letter was to one of the trade union representatives. She said:
	"Funding the new agency. With regard to the point you raised about funding the new agency generally, this will be accommodated from within Departmental spending limits, using appropriate phasing and piloting as necessary. I agree that it is important that the new agency should be properly funded, which is why it will not be established until it is known how the costs can be met. As part of the development of the new agency's blueprint, more work is needed to determine the cost profiles associated with the management of the transfer of pay and pension responsibilities, buildings and associated contractual obligations to the new agency. Until a clear costs profile has been established together with how those costs can be met, clauses bringing the new agency into effect will not be invoked".
	I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, sometimes pokes fun at what he may describe as "management speak", but I believe that this is a clear commitment to ensure that the agency is properly funded, and that until more precision can be brought to bear on the costs and the costs of transferring pay and pension responsibilities, those matters will not be established and put in place. That is a reasonable guarantee to give.
	Perhaps I can go a stage further. We shall try to put more meat on the bones and see what more information can be provided in terms of facts and figures. It is only reasonable to make the point that such matters are part of an iterative process, that there is much to work out in the detail and so on, but our clear commitment is to undertake to do that.
	We also want to offer reassurance, principally to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and to other noble Lords who have been responsible for properly tabling the amendments. There is no plan to expand contracting out as described. Contracting out will be used, as at present, simply to provide some flexibility. It is not part of the transitional plan. We cannot make it clearer or plainer than that. There is no hidden or secret agenda; it is simply to provide the necessary flexibility.
	I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. Clause 2(4) states:
	"The Lord Chancellor may enter into such arrangements . . . as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the courts".
	The clause does not set out all the bodies or persons with whom the Lord Chancellor can enter into arrangements, as that would restrict his flexibility and choice. It is the Government's intention that the Lord Chancellor will be able to enter into arrangements with a range of people or bodies, including, as I said, private companies, self-employed people or independent contractors, as and when appropriate. For that reason, we doubt whether the noble Baroness's amendment is necessary or adds anything, although it is kind of her to have thought of the point. We are grateful to her for giving some further thought to the point, but we see no reason to go further than we have.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, for withdrawing Amendment No. 10. As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 11 would oblige the Lord Chancellor to consult heads of division before contracting out under Clause 2. I doubt whether a specific provision requiring him to consult heads of division is necessary or appropriate. The current statutory instrument, made under Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971—the Contracting Out (Administrative and Other Court Staff) Order 2001—provides for a general power to contract out the provision of services listed in Section 27(1) of that Act.
	Given the broad terms of the 2001 order, there is a question over what consultation with heads of division would otherwise achieve. The order is only about the power to enter into contracts; it does not cover or govern any actual or proposed contracts. It is simply concerned with the power to enter into those contracts. I want it in the public domain and on the record that the Lord Chancellor would obviously wish to continue to consult in much the same way that he currently does. Regular consultation is carried out, in particular, with senior judges about contractual matters. We will continue to consult, and the normal processes will continue. The fears that have been expressed about the provisions are not justified. I hope that, in trying to describe the arrangements, I have provided the necessary assurance.

Lord Ackner: Can I intervene without embarrassing the noble Lord? No one is levelling their guns at this Lord Chancellor, but, if we leave the power in without any obligation to consult, his successors would be immune from any obligation. The fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has wisely consulted on major matters would be history. We need something that will bind his successors, who may not be as generously disposed to the judiciary.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I must say that it would be a foolish Lord Chancellor who failed to consult. At this stage in these proceedings, we cannot legislate for every future Lord Chancellor and everything that he or she might do. However, we have well established, entrenched practice, which has served us well. Future Lord Chancellors would be ill advised to depart from good, well established practice.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, he is conceding that the Lord Chancellor engages in such practices now. What is wrong with including the requirement in the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We want to ensure, particularly in creating CACs, that we have the broadest possible opportunities to consult. If we put something in the Bill along the lines of what has been suggested, we may limit our flexibility and close down opportunities to consult those whom we need to consult.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Then, why cannot my noble friend include in the amendment after the words "the Vice Chancellor" something to the effect that the Lord Chancellor may consult such other persons as he deems appropriate?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Such matters are probably best left to guidance, and the framework document will set out that guidance. It would be more appropriate for us to ensure that consultation arrangements are properly addressed in the framework documents. That is something for the future, but I can give an assurance that those matters will be dealt with directly in that document.
	Amendment No. 12 would require the Lord Chancellor to obtain an order before entering into arrangements for the provision of officers, staff or services under Clause 2(4). The new unified courts agency should have the power to enter into contracts for administrative work in the courts as necessary, so that, for example, agency secretarial and clerical cover can be provided. The agency will consult the unions fully about any more significant proposals to contract out for staff, as opposed to directly employing them. I make that commitment.
	We see no reason to maintain the provision that the Lord Chancellor must make an order authorising himself to do something. As the order currently in force is in the broadest possible terms, there would be no difference in outcome from that in the existing legal position. Moreover, the Bill specifies that some activities and posts will not be contracted out—justices' clerks, fines officers and officers and staff who discharge functions that involve making judicial decisions or exercising judicial discretion. We have specifically ruled out certain posts from the effects of contracting out.
	We are aware of the concerns that the trade unions raised during the preparation of the Bill and their concerns about the ending of the requirement to make an order. I repeat our undertaking that we will discuss those matters further with the unions and, quite properly, report back to your Lordships' House.
	I hope that, with that full response, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I take from the noble Lord's reply that the Government have not done the sums, do not know how much the reforms will cost and cannot introduce them until they have worked out the sums. If it so happens that the Government can balance the books only by contracting out services, they will do that and keep people off the pension fund. Finally, the Government do not want the judges interfering with the Lord Chancellor's ability to do that. That is what the noble Lord has told us in the past 10 minutes. I have the gravest fear that, if that is what happens, there will be considerable trouble among the administrative staff not just of Crown Courts but of magistrates' courts and county courts.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Renton for his defence and support of the amendment. First, I turn to my Amendment No. 9. I thank the Minister for his helpful response; although, I am not sure how helpful it was to other noble Lords who have amendments in this group. The Minister has shown clearly that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, is right. Clause 2(4) allows the expansion of contracting out in the future. The Minister assures us that there are no plans systematically to expand contracting out. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, the potential is there.
	I consider that there may be good reasons—I may be on the Government's side for once—at some future stage for contracting out. Where we all agree is that we would consider them good reasons only if there had been proper consultation. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with regard to the importance of consultation being up front and clear in the Bill. We shall need to look at that issue further.
	The Minister said, "Ah, well, yes, we need flexibility on this", but one person's flexibility in management is another person's fracture. We do not want a fractured management. Certainly, at this stage, I shall withdraw the amendment, but it may not be the end of the story.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 2, line 16, at end insert "(including the functions of a fines officer)"

Lord Goodhart: I hope that Amendment No. 13 is unnecessary. Clause 2(5) rightly excludes the contracting out of judicial functions. The fines officers are a new form of officer with a duty to improve the collection of fines. I welcome that. Under Schedule 2, a fines officer has powers which clearly appear to be judicial: the power to vary a collection order, under paragraphs 7 and 11; possibly the power to determine the amount of an increase, under paragraph 9; and the power to issue a warrant, make an attachment order or a clamping order, under paragraph 13. Will the Minister assure us that these are regarded as the exercise of a judicial discretion or the making of a judicial decision? If that is the case, it would therefore be clear that the role of fines officer could not be contracted out, which we think is correct. If that is not so and if the role of fines officer could be contracted out to someone who was not a direct employee of the Lord Chancellor, that would be a matter of great concern to us. I beg to move.

Lord Jones: I speak with diffidence, following the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is clear that we must give full support to the collection of fines imposed by the court—not to do so would countenance the collapse of the entire system. However, there is concern among magistrates that fines officers will have the power to vary a fine without reference to the magistrates who impose them. That could surely undermine the validity of the sentence passed by the court.
	Will the Minister consider that point in his response to the debate? Many magistrates would be grateful for a considered view of a matter that greatly exercises them. I know for sure that that is the case in north-east Wales. What checks will there be? What will be done to monitor this scene? How will the fines officer be responsive in all of this? On what grounds will a fines officer vary the fines of magistrates? Is there guidance other than in the schedule and in Clause 31? What links will there be between the magistrates and the fines officers? I was impressed by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I hope that the Minister will respond.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I had not expected to be in a position to raise this point. At Second Reading, I expressed doubts as to whether the position of the fines officer was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was kind enough to write to me—stupidly I have left the letter behind—giving the Government's thoughts on this matter. If I have it wrong in recollection, I hope that she will correct me.
	My recollection is that, in part, the fines officer will not be acting in a judicial capacity, but merely enforcing decisions already made by the magistrates' court. So be it. However, in part, the letter stated that the fines officer would be acting judicially in providing different remedies for collection of fines. It stated that that would be acceptable because there would be a right of appeal to court. I can see the noble Baroness nodding; perhaps my recollection is not far wrong.
	Frankly, I was taken aback by that answer. If that is right, we can abolish the independence of the High Court, because there is always an appeal; we do not have to bother about the circuit court, because there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal; we do not have to bother about vast tranches of courts which no longer need to be independent and impartial and qualify under the European Convention, provided there is an appeal to a tribunal court which does qualify. I cannot believe that I understood the noble Baroness's letter correctly; or alternatively—I hesitate to suggest this as an alternative—that she understands the European Convention correctly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendments Nos. 64 and 65, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Seccombe, directly approach the point raised at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. As a result of hearing and subsequently re-reading his speech, I decided to draft the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, has raised an important but wide issue. I do not believe that it would be helpful to the Committee if I rehearsed some of the arguments that will be put in detail later by my noble friend Lady Seccombe.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we shall discuss this issue at a later stage. In order to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I should put on record that the role of the fines officer is to manage the collection of fines on behalf of the court through the fines collection scheme. Before a fine may be enforced through the scheme, the court must first make a collection order. I believe that much is clear.
	I should like it to be further understood that judicial powers will not be usurped; neither will the power and validity of the court sentence be undermined. The court will continue to take the sentencing decision, but it will be for the fines officer to exercise the purely administrative function of applying any necessary enforcement measures. I hope that is clear. We can have further elucidation when we reach the relevant part of the Bill.
	In respect of Amendment No. 13, I am confident that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the point that he raised in the amendment. Obviously, the amendment would prevent the Lord Chancellor from contracting out the work of fines officers. We are grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment, but we question whether it is necessary. An amendment to subsection (5) to prevent the Lord Chancellor contracting out the work of fines officers is, in our view, pointless. Clause 31(1)(a) clearly states that fines officers will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. No mention is made of the Lord Chancellor being able to make arrangements under Clause 2(4) for the provision of fines officers. There is a distinction, which I am sure the noble Lord will understand.
	Therefore, the Lord Chancellor would not have the power or the authority to contract out the work. I gave that reassurance in earlier debate. I hope that that reassurance will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
	I want to take up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. His summary of the Government's position was far wide of the mark. I am sorry he made the summary in the way he did because it tries to sour the debate. We should today be concentrating on the practical steps that the Government are taking to implement important legislation which seeks to modernise and improve the working of our courts system. We should focus on the reality rather than on an imagined and unconscious attempt by the Government to undermine its proper operation.
	I hope that there is no cynicism in the debate because we are trying to improve the way in which the court system works. We want it to be more accessible, understandable and available, enabling the public—the consumers—properly to use it. I hope that we enter into a better spirit in discussing these important clauses and amendments.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Is cost not the greatest reality? The Minister says that the Government have not costed the proposal. Surely the consumer—the taxpayer—is concerned with cost. That is reality. I do not want to sound as though I am carping. But we are here to test the Government out on all the details of their legislation. We want to look at what appears to be a large loophole in the provisions of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall return to the point. It is incorrect to say that we have not costed the proposal. However, any reasonable person would see that it is right and proper that some of the detail is worked out during the process of bringing forward legislation. We want to ensure that the new system is proper and effective in its running and organisation. That is why we have been necessarily cautious in saying that we want to work out the detail and introduce a pilot scheme.
	One cannot be precise at every instance when estimating exactly the breadth of the cost, but we want to ensure that the resources are available in order that the courts work effectively and properly in everyone's interest.

Lord Jones: I rise with practicality in mind and in the best spirit. Does my noble friend categorically say that the fines officer shall not vary the fines imposed by the magistrates?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I make it clear to my noble friend that the fines officer does not vary the fines but that he will be able to vary the way in which they are collected. That is the point.

Lord Jones: My noble friend, with great courtesy, gave me the answer which I did not want. My question was specific and categorical. Will the fines officer have the power to vary the fines imposed by magistrates in the courts?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that I was clear. The fines officer will not have the ability to vary the quantum—the totality—of the fine. However, he may well vary the way in which the fine is collected; in other words, the collection period.

Lord Goodhart: Having looked at paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, I am by no means certain that the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, is correct. However, that matter can be left until our debate on Clause 31 and Schedule 2.
	Amendment No. 11 was tabled for debate to take place on the assumption that no alteration was made in the powers of a fines officer under Clause 31 and Schedule 2.
	I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record the fact that the fines officer can be appointed only under Clause 2(1) and not by virtue of an arrangement under subsection (4). That satisfies the doubt which prompted me to table Amendment No. 13 and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Provision of accommodation]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 2, line 18, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that the Lord Chancellor should not be left with the discretion as to whether he should,
	"provide, equip, maintain and manage such courthouses, offices and other accommodation"
	to be used by the justice system but that he should have a duty to do so. The good old method by which we impose that duty is to change the permissive "may" in Clause 3(1) to the obligatory "shall".
	If the requirement under the clause is simply that the Lord Chancellor may obtain the necessary budget and may spend it in the right way, we are leaving open the possibility that he may not choose to do so. That would seem objectionable. To echo a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I cannot imagine that any Lord Chancellor would not want to do so. Only an ill-advised Lord Chancellor would choose not to follow his duty in these respects.
	Which Lord Chancellor would not want to make such provision? We allege no such thing against the current Lord Chancellor. Indeed, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am not attacking the personality of any Minister. I am looking at a Bill which will be in place for generations to come and may see many characters come and go. We want to be sure that they all behave in the right way by our justice system.
	Would our amendment box in the Lord Chancellor if he wished to take specific action? No, it would not. He would retain flexibility because we have left in place the provision that the buildings and contents he should provide will be those he believes to be appropriate. We therefore leave him discretion on what he does; we say merely that it would plainly be daft if the Bill did not give him the absolute duty to provide the buildings and equipment.
	Our amendment guarantees to the public that now and in future the Lord Chancellor will ensure that there is proper provision of the physical resources which support our judicial system. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: Amendment No. 14 is important. In order that justice may appear to be done, it must be carried out in circumstances which impress the people. That can occur only if the courts are properly maintained, are suitable and efficient places in which to work, and where necessary have the royal coat of arms. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor of the day should be under a strict obligation to spend public money on ensuring that the courts are properly maintained. That is why I hope that the Government will sympathise with the amendment moved by my noble friend.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. If not, perhaps I may direct his attention to line 10 on page 3 of the Bill. There he will see, in relation to the establishment of court administration councils under Clause 4, that subsection (5) states:
	"The Lord Chancellor must provide the councils with guidance about the way in which they should discharge their functions".
	Why is it right to have "must" there if it is not right to have "shall" in the part of the Bill with which the amendment is concerned?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: On the face of it, this seems an innocent and worthwhile amendment. I was sitting there thinking that I should concede. However, on reading my notes again, I have to reconsider that proposition.
	It seems a sensible amendment—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, put it in good terms—but my understanding of the impact is that it would place the Lord Chancellor under a duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, to provide court-houses and other accommodation. That is certainly the Lord Chancellor's intention and exactly what we want to do. But Clause 3(1) is modelled on Section 28 of the Courts Act 1971. I was not anywhere near government in 1971—I was probably preparing for my A-levels—but no doubt the draftsman considered that what he had drafted at that time was fit for purpose. The important point is that, as the clause is drafted, it empowers the Lord Chancellor to provide such accommodation. Changing the power to a duty would, I am advised, prevent the Lord Chancellor from entering into arrangements with other persons or bodies for the provision of accommodation as set out in Clause 3(2).
	That would be the effect of the amendment. To give its impact some body, some life, I am advised that it would specifically prevent the Lord Chancellor from entering into arrangements with people such as the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of any property held by him. The effect of the amendment would be to impose a straitjacket and prevent the flexibility required under the original legislation to allow arrangements to be entered into for the use of properties held by other departments. That is the explanation.
	We always pay great attention to suggestions for improving the quality of the wording and we shall certainly have another look at it. But the amendment could have an unfortunate and unintended consequence. We wish to ensure that courts are properly provided for, properly equipped, properly maintained, and so on. That is the intention, as it was in 1971 when the legislation on which the clause is modelled was originally drafted.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Before my noble friend sits down, I fail to understand his logic. I would much prefer that he said here and now that the Government will have another look at the matter. My noble friend has not delivered that assurance. He may have intended to, but we have to observe firm rules here.
	A sensible case has been argued. We have an opportunity to look at the matter again. On the face of it, inserting the word "shall" in Clause 3(1) is very sensible. Can I hear from my noble friend again in regard to that?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the amendment. The Lord Chancellor is not going to build the court-houses with his own hands. I do not see how his flexibility to hire other firms to build court-houses is affected by changing "may" to "shall".
	I was around in 1971, in a brand-new court-house in Mold—the palace-on-the-hill—which really was splendid. However, on visits there over the past 10 years, as I said in the Second Reading debate, there have been buckets all over the place to catch the water coming through the roof. I believe that the Lord Chancellor has not given the right priority to the maintenance of some of these excellent court-houses. The word "shall" would impose a duty—something to which people could point—and require the proper repair of court-houses currently in existence.

Lord Hylton: The 1971 Act has been quoted as a precedent. I am sure that at that time the concept of private finance initiatives had never been thought of. It is very much on the agenda now. I wonder whether the Government's reply, to which we listened carefully, might not conceal an intention to provide new court-houses by PFI.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: One of the oddities of the opposition to the change is that, in replying to the argument, the Minister seemed to address himself to the "may" found in Clause 3(2) rather than the "may" which is the subject of the amendment—leave out "may" and insert "shall"—at page 2, line 18.
	It is perfectly appropriate that the Lord Chancellor should be under a duty in subsection (1), but when it comes to the issue of making arrangements he should be given a degree of discrimination and allowed to use his best discretion in these matters. There is nothing incompatible between having "shall" at page 2, line 18, and "may" in subsection (2) at line 21.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Would it be unkind to suggest to the Minister that he has overlooked his best point—that is, that guidance is free and putting up court-houses is not?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for the support of my noble friend Lord Renton, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, urged his noble friend the Minister to look at this matter again, but there is no need. As the Minister said, the Government have an opportunity here to do something simple. There is no need to wait. My amendment would not impose any prohibition on the Lord Chancellor from doing his job properly. Indeed, it would ensure that future generations of Lord Chancellors would do their job properly.
	I would have been happy if the Minister had stayed with his first comment, that the amendment was innocent and worthwhile and that he should concede. I shall give him a chance to think again by seeking the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 92.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
	Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Establishment of court administration councils]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 2, line 37, after "into" insert "a minimum of 25"

Lord Dixon-Smith: Clauses 4 and 5 contain the core of the way in which the new, unified courts administration service is to operate. I find myself in some difficulty. I suspect, as must most other Members of the Committee, that the Minister must be embarrassed, because she cannot tell us in detail how the system is to work. Whenever we begin to approach the detail, the whole system is "out for consultation" and no decisions are to be taken until we have the results.
	I find it passing strange that we should be invited to approve legislation to establish a new system when we do not have a clear picture of what it will be. It is somewhat unsurprising, therefore, that these two clauses have attracted a large volume of amendments.
	Perhaps I may begin with a quiet question to the Government on Clause 4(1). It states:
	"England and Wales is to be divided into areas".
	Is that wording appropriate? England and Wales was certainly a discrete administrative area prior to devolution and the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. However, I am fairly confident that there are those in Wales who would argue that Wales is now a separate entity and that the clause ought therefore to read:
	"England and Wales are to be divided".
	Although primary legislation can properly apply across England and Wales, the Welsh have particular rights and a particular status.
	This is a simple question. It could have been asked by means of a further amendment, but I did not think that appropriate. The amendment simply seeks to add to Clause 4(1) a minimum number of areas for which there should be court administration councils. We are dealing with practicalities.
	Amendment No. 17 is somewhat different. It ties the court administration councils to police areas, as happens under the existing system. That point is acknowledged in the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the Select Committee on the Constitution in which he acknowledges that the existing limits are to be the base blocks of any new system.
	But the Bill does not indicate how England and Wales is to be divided. Theoretically, there could be one court administration council for England and another for Wales. That would be preposterous. But if the scale of the London Magistrates' Courts Committee operation were applied throughout the United Kingdom, one might have eight or nine court administration councils. There would be a logical basis for that, although one could argue that it was impractical. If there were one court administration council to cover the whole of the North, I wonder whether it would take much longer to travel from the east coast to the west coast of that region than it does to travel from the northern boundary of London to the southern boundary, such is the state to which its traffic system has been reduced.
	Outside the London area, an area on that scale would be far too big. It would be administratively impossible for a court administration council to operate in an area of that size and to understand local pressures and nuances, which, it is implied, councils must do. So, my first cock-shy—I admit that it is such, because there is no absolute logic in it—is that we should include "a minimum of 25" in the Bill. It is a nice simple number, although it was not the first one that came into my head. It would allow considerable streamlining of the present system, if it were genuinely desired, but it would have disadvantages. There is much to commend the present arrangements, whereby the magistrates courts, which handle the vast bulk of cases numerically in any event, the police and the Probation Service all work on similar areas.
	But the difficulty is that we cannot get any solid information from the Government on precisely what they intend. So my second thought was that we should use the police force area as the basic block, as is almost current practice. It makes a good deal of sense. Large geographic areas would still be involved. A very diligent group of people would be needed to know and understand their area, its pressures and difficulties, and, most importantly, how to improve and streamline a service in the interests of the community they represent.
	So, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are grouped together. I hope that the Government will indicate not only their reaction—

Lord Renton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he proposing that there should be as many court administration councils as there are police authorities?

Lord Dixon-Smith: That would be the effect of Amendment No. 17. It is very practical. The new administration must start somewhere. Tying the number of court administration councils to the number of police forces would give us an existing pattern of building blocks. But that does not prevent the numbers from falling. A reduction in the number of police forces, which may happen, would provide an opportunity for a change in the courts administration system. The difficulty is that, under the Bill and from what we have learned so far, we have no means of judging what should happen and whether it will work. I beg to move.

Lord Jones: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with some diffidence. In the White Paper Justice for All the Government promised that court management decisions would be taken locally by local management boards. They also stated that,
	"resources can be managed flexibly to meet local requirements".
	If I understand it correctly, instead we are told that management boards are now to be court administration councils to provide the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with recommendations, which are not necessarily binding. Might that result in an erosion of local accountability rather than the enhancement promised six months ago by a Minister in a letter to all magistrates? I emphasise that magistrates' courts committees currently include in their membership 12 justices of the peace who practise in the area. Under the proposals, each court administration council would have only one justice of the peace as provided at line 3 on page 3 of the Bill in subsection (4)(b).
	It is fair to argue that this will not keep the courts,
	"in touch with the communities they serve",
	as promised previously by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hesitate to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Jones, but I think that he is debating my next group of amendments rather than the present one.

Lord Jones: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, argued so persuasively that he stirred my enthusiasm.

Lord Waddington: I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones, because I agree with almost every word he said. We are entitled to guidance on how many areas it is proposed to divide England and Wales into.
	If there is to be only one justice of the peace for each court administration council, it follows, as night follows day, that the council cannot have any meaning unless it covers only a relatively small area. The document that was put in the Library—the so-called statement about the principles which will form the basis of the agency's framework document—refers more than once to local areas. That means different things to different people. I hope that by the end of this debate we will at least have a clearer exposition from the Government as to what sort of areas they have in mind. Only when we know how large these areas are can we begin to debate seriously what the representation on the court administration councils could be. It seems absurd that we should be asked to discuss the councils' composition when we have no idea what sort of areas they will cover. If the Government are to stick to the idea of having only one JP per council, it follows that if those councils are to have any meaningful role, they will have to cover relatively tightly drawn and small areas. We could not have nine or 10 covering the whole of England and Wales.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I warmly endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and my noble friend Lord Waddington. This is controversial because of the anxiety felt about some provisions that greatly enhance the centralisation of the administration of justice in this country at the expense of the well tried and greatly admired local accountability of magistrates' courts. That is the context.
	I hope that the Minister took on board what the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said. Are the Government aware that the Magistrates' Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees are at one in objecting to the proposals? They do not object to them in principle, because they realise that there may be better ways of managing the magistrates' courts than through the magistrates courts' committees, as at present constituted and distributed. But they were reassured to read in the White Paper that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, there would be true accountability with meaningful local management with an overall guiding national framework for the unified court. Now it appears, from the Bill, that the CACs will not have any decision-making powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, even the recommendations provided by the council are due to receive only a measure of due consideration from the Lord Chancellor.
	We hope to find an explanation in what the Minister has to say for the U-turn in respect of what the White Paper and the letter in August referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, promised. What is the reason for the U-turn and what is the proposed scale of distribution of CACs? If there are to be only a small number, that is a further blow to local accountability and local contact with the administration of justice, and that is greatly feared from this part of the Bill.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendment No. 17 is replicated in Amendment No. 23. I think it fair to say that Amendments Nos. 23, 28 and 30, in the names of Members from Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches, cover the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, rather more fully. It may be best to keep our powder dry for later.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: On the specific issue of the numbers of court administration councils, I refer to the letter written by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on 23 December last when she replied to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, saying:
	"No decision will be taken about the number of Court Administration Councils until there has been consultation with all stakeholders. Our consideration of these matters will of course take full account of the need to fit with the criminal justice areas (which are clearly a building block of the new organisation), and other considerations (such as the needs of civil and family justice). This is in accord with Sir Robin Auld's recommendation 102".
	In fact, as I recall from his report, Sir Robin Auld did not approve of the idea of 42 councils. I should like an assurance, once these consultations with stakeholders have been completed, that each criminal justice area will have a court administration council.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to Wales. These matters are not devolved to Wales, but I can understand the Lord Chancellor considering Wales in this respect. The fact that it is easier for the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and me to get to London than to Cardiff is neither here nor there. The temptation to have one court administration council for Wales would be considerable. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that that is not the plan.

Viscount Tenby: Keeping one's powder dry is rather a good thing to do at this stage. Let us not rush ahead too far. We are, as I understand it, talking about the specific amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. But since my name has kindly been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, let me say that I said what I did on Second Reading in an effort not to dismember the 42 existing councils which are showing signs of succeeding. They have been up and running for only 18 months. To take all that to pieces, petulantly, like a child in a nursery, may be a mistake. If the system is running, we should not muck about with it. That was the point that I was trying to make. As far as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is concerned, I am interested to see how the argument develops.

Lord Jones: When the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, examines Hansard tomorrow, he might see that I constructed my argument around his generous cock-shy of 25.
	The noble Lord made an interesting point at the beginning of his remarks on Amendment No. 16 regarding Wales. I thought that I should inform him that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, chairs an all-party commission that has been set up by the Assembly for Wales. The noble Lord might wish to go before that commission with his interesting suggestion or to write to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I think, however, that he might have more success with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, than he will ever have with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

Lord Waddington: I hope that the Minister will answer this simple question: how can we be expected to agree Clause 4(4)—the composition of a council—until we are told how many councils there will be and how large will be the areas that they cover? Now we are told that the number of councils will not be determined until there is further consultation. In that case, I repeat what I said a moment ago: how, until that consultation has taken place, can we possibly agree the composition of the councils?

Lord Hylton: The Government have a duty to the Committee to disclose the basis on which they have been consulting. Either they must have approached the consultees saying that they had no ideas and wanted to hear their views, or they must have put forward thoughts on the nature and size of the areas. The Government should enlighten us.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support both amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I well understand why some Members of the Committee may have gone slightly wide of the wording of the amendments. They may have an early draft of groupings that took them further into the Bill. That may well have caused the problems.
	As my noble friend Lord Waddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, have just said, the amendments relate exactly to the crucial point of what the Government are saying when they consult on the number of the councils. If we do not know the number, we do not know how we can advise on how the rest of the Bill should be drafted.
	I was intrigued to note in the report on the Bill by the Select Committee on the Constitution that, in response to questions about the number of areas, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor echoed, but did not quite copy, the answer from last summer quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble and learned Lord said:
	"The 42 criminal justice areas will be the building blocks"—
	building blocks again—
	"for the new structure, though a specific link to them in statute would be restrictive".
	It looks like our old friend inflexibility again. He went on:
	"if other criminal justice agencies were to change their area structure, the courts would not be able to adapt quickly".
	We shall have a full opportunity to discuss that on later amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said. However, that accusation cannot be levelled at Amendment No. 16, which merely says that there should be a minimum of 25. That gives the Government the opportunity to put clearly on the record the terms on which they have consulted so far. Have they proposed any particular minimum or maximum? In what context are people responding? Can we be assured that we shall have a truly local structure? We do not currently have that assurance. The Government should have consulted first and brought the results to this House.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am in an interesting position. The purpose of the consultation process is to make sure that the local voice is heard and that no arbitrary decision is taken centrally about the number of councils that are necessary to meet the needs of the people of our country. If we did not believe in partnership or in listening to the people who operate the system and to the evidence, it would have been possible to pick a number out of the air and impose it. We thought that would be a fundamentally flawed approach.
	The court administration council areas will set the structure for the councils and the new agency with which the councils will work in partnership. It is essential that we choose the right areas so that they are at the right level to have local cohesion and to operate as viable management units for all the courts' business in the magistrates' court, the Crown Court and the county court.
	There was extensive consultation on the framework and the need for a unified administration. That came from Lord Justice Auld's report and a number of other sources. There is a lot of support for the principle that unified administration will bring many worthwhile benefits.
	We are open in principle to the setting of a minimum number of court administration council areas. We do not intend, as some may suspect, to establish as few as possible to water down their influence in some way. However, we need to consider carefully the level at which that minimum should be set so that it does not create an undue restriction. We are not willing to make a cock-shy of it to satisfy everyone immediately. We want to get this right.
	The clause already requires that the area structure be set by order, which will give an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny before the area structure is set. The area structure for the councils and the new agency is one of the issues that we intend to consult on, as all those who have spoken know. We know that the areas will differ one from another. We do not believe that one size fits all. What may be right for Wales may not be right for the North West. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that Wales is as precious to us as is England. We would not give up an inch of it. We want a proper balance. We want the right size to meet the needs of each area. That is what we must do.
	We have also set minimum standards. There have been comments about the provision for only one magistrate. We are not prescribing that there should be only one magistrate on each council. We are setting that as an irreducible minimum. We shall talk about those issues in due course.
	These consultations are taking place across the country, starting this month. The first consultation is on 30th January and they will continue through to April. These events will help us to develop a clearer picture of what the area structure should be and what might be appropriate as a minimum number of council areas. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
	On Amendment No. 17, the noble Lord is right that the police authority areas are the basis for the criminal justice system structure. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, is aware, the criminal justice areas are not exactly the same as the police authority areas. The Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police areas are treated as one. I presume that the noble Lord's intention is to create a link to the 42 criminal justice areas, not to the 43 police authority areas. I shall reply on that basis.
	If the court administration councils are to make an effective contribution, their areas should set the structure for the new agency, with which the councils will work in partnership. It is essential that we choose the right areas so that they are the right level to have local cohesion and to operate as a viable management unit for all the courts' business in the magistrates' court, the Crown Court and the county court. On a number of occasions in our discussions there has been a proper concentration on the magistrates' courts, but almost no mention that we are also including the civil and Crown Courts in the new administrative procedure. That is a very important point, because some of our practical gains will come from that unification.
	The new structure needs to enable us to improve the services to local community and court users and to operate effectively at the level of the 42 criminal justice system areas, as well as within the business network of the civil and family jurisdictions. We intend to ensure that the court administration councils can make an effective contribution to local strategy, to provide for day-to-day operational decisions to be taken locally wherever possible, to reduce the currently wide variation in performance across the country, to ensure that the public receive consistent standards of service from all courts in all jurisdictions, and to support the judiciary and the magistracy at all levels. If Members of the Committee, looking at the whole country, are already able to say that we should have 27, 31, 42 or 43 councils, then I can only respectfully say that they are in a far better position than I am.
	We intend to get this right, not for ourselves but for those who use our courts day in and day out. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, is right. The rearrangement into the new areas has brought benefits, which is why we say that it is a building block. We will not injudiciously throw away that which has worked unless and until we discover that there is a better arrangement. We can discover that only by having intense conversations with all the parties across the country who are best able to advise on the best structure. Perhaps 25 is the right minimum number. Perhaps it is 35 or 40. I simply cannot give the Committee that assurance now. Neither am I willing to sacrifice the benefits that will come from that consultative process, as that is how we will ensure sound management for the future.
	We are examining the issue as profoundly and thoroughly as we can. Members of the Committee have said that they would like more detail today, and I would love to be able to give them that detail today. However, I give the Committee this assurance. As and when the consultation results come through, we will make that information available to the House as speedily as possible and the House will have an opportunity to discuss it.
	I understand the Committee's anxiety about the threat of enhancing centralisation. As I said, however, that is not our intent. I understand, too, the anxieties expressed by the Magistrates' Association and others about the nature of their function. When we come to debate that issue, I shall seek to address those fears. I say now that our intent does not differ; we differ only on how the intent is carried out. The Government share the Committee's desire to ensure that the local nature of service delivery not only continues but is improved and enhanced.

Lord Waddington: If the areas are going to differ in size, does it not follow that it might be appropriate to have differently composed court administration councils depending on whether they looked after the interests of a large area or a small one? Will we not finish up with the same difficulty when we examine Clause 44? We are supposed to decide the composition of the councils, but we are entirely in the dark as to the number and shape of the areas. If there were a very large area, and therefore a council which had to cover a very large area, there would be a very strong case for a minimum of two, three, four or more JPs on the council, whereas there may be a case for a minimum of only one JP on a council looking after a more compact area.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The intention is that there should be a minimum of one. That would be the irreducible minimum. However, the noble Lord is right to say that, because of the difference in need of different areas, the councils may be constructed differently and have different compositions. We propose to ensure that the framework is right. The fundamental principles on which each council operates will be the same, but they will allow sufficient flexibility and variation to respond to local needs. As the noble Lord rightly said, the larger areas may have many more members. Various and differing consultative sub-boards may also be set up. We intend to examine all those issues in detail and they will be included in guidance. The framework document will help us greatly with the parameters. We shall continue to put flesh on the bones. As that flesh becomes manifest, we shall ensure that that information is brought back to the House.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. However, she has painted a vivid picture of the Government feeling their way through territory which appears to be almost unknown in this consultation, and yet she has not provided an answer to the question that I ventured to ask. What has already been made known to the Government to bring about the change between what was promised in the White Paper and what the Bill currently characterises for the CACs?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One Member of the Committee—I cannot remember now whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his usual charming turn of phrase, or the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—suggested that the Government had made a U-turn on local management boards. I say absolutely that there has been no U-turn. We have strengthened the local focus.
	As demonstrated by our decisions, we have decided that an executive agency that provides a national framework will best respond to the needs identified to us both in the Auld report and in the other assessments of the necessary changes. We thought it important that the external members of what will be the local management board have a statutory identity, and we propose to give them that in the clauses which cover court administration councils. Although some have latched onto the name, we believe that the important point is not the body's name but what it does. It may be called a council or a board. We will examine how the functions between the different parties will operate.
	Through the guidance and the framework document, we hope to give not only the Committee but all those with anxieties about the matter, both in the magistrates' community and elsewhere, the types of reassurance about how the arrangements will work that they clearly need. We want to make it clear that our intention as expressed in the White Paper has not changed one jot.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly. As we are in Committee, we have the wonderful luxury of being able to pick up on one or two little points.
	It may be appropriate for me to return later, when we come to my Amendment No. 23, to the noble Baroness's comments regarding actions rather than words. I should like now simply to ask her a question about consultation. In a previous debate, she tried to be helpful about the current consultation. She said that the Government will publish the consultation and that the House will be able to debate it. Does she recognise that noble Lords need to have that debate before the Bill leaves this House? In saying that we will have a chance properly to consider the consultation within the context of this legislation, was she undertaking to speak to the Leader of the House to ensure that we do not reach Report stage before we have that consultation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Baroness knows better than I that that is a matter for the usual channels. We have indicated how the timings will run. We intend, as and when we get the initial outcomes from the consultation, to try to make an on-going assessment and share it as soon as is practicable.
	As noble Lords who attended the relatively small meeting that was held will know—I say small because, although it was open to all, few had the burden of attending, perhaps because the fire was then not as evident as it clearly is in the House today—we are not consulting on specific options. Instead, we are using the large and small areas as scenarios. We are asking stakeholders—if the noble Lord, Lord Gresford, wants me to list whom I mean by stakeholders, I am happy to do so again, but it will be in Hansard, if that assists him—what structure they think would best help them to achieve the objectives set out before we present options.
	After that consultation process, we will narrow the options, stating what appears to be beneficial and less beneficial. Through that process, we hope to engage people appropriately.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate and, in particular, the Minister for doing her best in what are exceedingly difficult circumstances to be as helpful as she can. I salute her for that and have every confidence in her in the matter.
	However, we still face a dilemma. Procedurally, it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to complete their consultation and take the relevant decisions for us to know what we were doing. However, the Bill is before us and we are being asked to take the decision without knowing in any way how the new system is to work. How can we possibly make a valid and sensible judgment?
	The noble Baroness kindly said that the new structure would have to be introduced by order. So it may. That indeed brings the matter before us again, but the procedure for orders is that we accept them or reject them. We cannot alter a comma or a capital letter. On a matter of such significance, I fear that we are being treated in a somewhat cavalier fashion. The other procedure was available under which we could have known what was to happen.
	I stick simply to the issue of numbers. I cannot say that I am satisfied with the answer that I have received, because I have not received an answer. Given that, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 92.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: For the convenience of the Committee, given the hour at which we have arrived, I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee meets again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Endangered Species

Lord Hoyle: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on the review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES).
	My Lords, I hope for a positive response to my Unstarred Question as regards longer sentences for those involved in the illegal wildlife trade.
	First, I wish to outline the background to the illegal trade. International wildlife trade is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In the UK the illegal wildlife trade is governed by the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES).
	Wildlife crime is a booming business. On average, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise seize thousands of items each year. In one raid alone it seized two stuffed tiger cubs—animals which had been less than two weeks old—mounted on a branch, the skull of a gorilla, a leopard, and vultures, sparrowhawks and snowy owls.
	There is increasing evidence that this illegal trade is linked with organised crime, drug trafficking, intimidation and violence. Persistent offenders are very aware of flaws in existing legislation. In 1996 it was reported that Heathrow Customs officers discovered heroin packed in shells of live snails, while investigators in Rome found heroin hidden inside elephant tusks.
	However, there is a maximum limit of only a two-year prison sentence and limited fines. Sentences rarely match the seriousness of offences. For example, in April 2000 a company was fined just £1,500 for possessing 138 shahtoosh shawls made from the fleece of the highly endangered Tibetan antelope. Although the fine was only £1,500, the shawls were worth over £350,000 and—even worse—the animals that were killed to obtain the shawls were estimated to represent about 2 per cent of the world population of that species of antelope.
	Flaws in current legislation make the cost of building a case and recording the crime extremely difficult. The police have no power of entry into a suspect's premises without a search warrant and no powers to caution people. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and TRAFFIC, an organisation that monitors the trade in wildlife, campaign for tougher sentences and penalties for those engaged in the illegal wildlife trade. They want the maximum prison sentence to be increased from two to five years. That would not only send a strong message to those involved in the illegal trade but would also make the offences automatically arrestable under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
	The important feature of arrestable offences is that the police have additional powers. For instance, they would have the ability to search the premises owned or occupied by the concerned person without a warrant. The police would also have the power to take fingerprints, which is highly important. Equally important, they could obtain DNA samples, compel suspects to be interviewed, and bail suspects with conditions, where appropriate. With crimes increasingly endangering such species, it is very important that we increase the penalty.
	The good news is that the Government have already set out in consultative proposals the increased penalty—from two years to five—that I have been requesting. That is welcomed by the WWF-UK, TRAFFIC and many people in the country. The Government are taking the matter extremely seriously. When their consultative review is completed, I am sure that they will be prepared to act. It is vital that any changes are brought into law as soon as possible.
	I have some questions for the Minister. What is the date for completing the consultation process? And, arising from that, when can we expect new legislation introducing tougher sentences for wildlife criminals? Those are important because until we have them the species we are discussing will be in great danger. If at all possible, can the legislation be enacted during this parliamentary term? I do not think I am asking the impossible. If the Government respond quickly, I should have thought that the measure could be introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill. Is that the case? That would mean the proposal being brought forward very quickly, which would be a great help.
	What discussions have already taken place between DEFRA and the Home Office on the matter? How far have they gone? Is the timetable that I advocate reasonable?
	Knowing that my noble friend is due to reply, I can be sure of one thing: I shall get some very straight answers. I hope that they will be positive, that there will be good news, not only for myself and all those attending the debate—I thank them for taking the time to do so—but for the species in danger.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I declare that I am a member of an endangered species myself. Although I did not speak about my survival in a possible reform of the Lords last week, I rise to my feet on the more important issue of the black-market trade of other, more exotic endangered species. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for the opportunity.
	In my view, it is imperative to tackle the problem on two fronts. In the first instance, it must be tackled in the market-place, with strict enforcement to crack down on the black-market trading in endangered species in this country. The proposals announced by DEFRA make a good start at doing that. However, we must go further otherwise DEFRA's efforts will be wasted, because equally important as tackling the problem in the market-place is helping to tackle the problem in the country of origin.
	It is for the people living in the countries where the endangered species originate that the issue of smuggling is most urgent. Indeed, many of those people's livelihoods and diets depend on the finely balanced environment in which each species makes up a crucial part. The loss of one species can, and will, upset the whole balance, usually in areas of abject poverty.
	The wildlife and poverty study undertaken between April and October 2001, to assess evidence from DfID-funded activities for links between wildlife and poverty, shows that 101 million people in sub-Saharan Africa live on one dollar a day or less. It is in those areas that food security impacts on wildlife, particularly through tourism and bushmeat.
	What is the best way to control the trade in endangered plants and animals? In my opinion, an outright ban is not the answer. A total ban on the trade of endangered species would ignore the opportunity for sustainable development. With the hindsight of experience in combating the drugs trade, it would seem unlikely to succeed. Sustainable development involves managing resources in such a way as to allow wealth generation through trading revenues, while ensuring that that practice does not conflict with the overall goal of conservation.
	My next point is the one that I really want to press home. It is through sustainable development that those living and working in the country of origin will experience the fact that the good of endangered species and their own good go hand in hand. That matching of interests is the real answer to the dilemma about protecting endangered species. There are some interesting examples of ranching and farming of exotic species such as, in Ghana's ranching operations, the export of skins of monitor lizards, chameleons and pythons.
	A decade ago, I joined conservation teams mapping coral reefs in both Belize and the Philippines to determine the impact of tourism and fishing on coral reefs. Many reefs were not only damaged through dynamite and cyanide fishing, but through poor diving techniques. Conservation officers teaching and training local university students and local people to understand their coral reef environment, on which their communities' livelihoods relied, enabled those communities to realise the damage being done to their livelihoods. That is now helping to bring about sustainability.
	What does that mean with regard to today's debate? Measures to ensure stricter enforcement of illegal trade in endangered species are imperative. Illegal trading of wildlife not only risks the introduction of diseases—we have surely learned how serious the consequences of that can be—but can result in endangering species and a decline in food security in the country of origin.
	However, more than that must be done. Where there is a desire expressed by the country of origin to initiate sustainable development, we must work with it to make that happen. There is an opportunity here that should not be wasted. Let us go further than the well-meaning but limited DEFRA proposals that we are debating.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I warmly welcome this short debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for introducing it. It enables noble Lords to focus on the urgent need to strengthen the existing regulations and to introduce tougher sanctions against illegal trading in endangered species. I hope, too, that a new clause may be introduced into the Criminal Justice Bill to give to police and wildlife inspectors new powers and to make much more effective the campaign to curb this obnoxious trade. It is extraordinary that one can be arrested for poaching deer or salmon—or even a pheasant—in this country but that one cannot be arrested for selling a tiger or dealing in rhino horn or ivory.
	My concern is for two reasons. There is a very real danger of the extinction of certain species, which would be a disastrous loss to the biodiversity of the planet, and a serious matter in itself; it might well also have significant implications for human well-being. Even on a narrowly anthropocentric view of conservation, it is highly desirable to maintain the greatest possible variety of species for the sake of possible undiscovered benefits to humanity from plants and animal life. On any proper reckoning, the beauty and diversity of creation should be respected and protected in its own right.
	The second reason is that illegal trading in endangered species can often inflict considerable suffering on the animals concerned, whether they are brutally killed in their own habitat or—even worse—subjected to long journeys in intolerable conditions if they are live imports. There are many examples of scandalous abuses, which cry out to be dealt with more effectively and deserve much more severe punishment than can currently be administered by the courts. They have been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I agree with him about the changes that are needed.
	Illegal trading in endangered species is a very valuable business; it is extremely lucrative and is frequently linked to violent crime, drug dealing and Mafia networks. The present sanctions are ludicrously inadequate. Because the offence is not an arrestable offence, the police officer investigating it can say to a suspect, "Would you care to come with me to the police station?", but the person can perfectly well reply, "No thank you".
	The decline in the black rhino population has been catastrophic. Numbers have fallen from 65,000 about 30 years ago to 2,500 today. This species is particularly targeted by illegal traders. This trade needs to be stopped and the police given proper powers to bring traders to justice. However, a man found in possession of 127 rhino horns in 1998, with a value of £2.8 million, was able, on appeal, to retain them. In 2000, a survey by TRAFFIC, the wildlife monitoring programme, found that two-thirds of Chinese medicine shops in the United Kingdom were selling products containing protected animal and plant species. In the same year, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, pointed out, there was a haul of shahtoosh shawls, which are made from the wool of the rare and endangered Tibetan antelope—the chiru—but a ridiculously inadequate fine was placed on the person who had gathered the stock, which was worth £350,000.
	There are many more examples of the money that can be made out of the trade and the total inadequacy of the sanctions that are currently in place. It is, to our shame, true that the United Kingdom is a particularly lucrative market for this illegal trade in endangered species. We must accept our share of responsibility for the catastrophic decline in many rare species. Even the Indian tiger is threatened; its numbers are down by 95 per cent over the past 100 years. The South China, Siberian and Sumatran tigers are on the verge of extinction and three sub-species have already gone for good.
	There is much cruelty and malpractice in this wretched trade. Birds of prey are stuffed into six inch plastic tubes with their claws tied together, with no access to food or water on interminable intercontinental journeys. Eight deadly snakes were discovered closely confined in a flat in Sheffield. A four-foot alligator was abandoned in a telephone box. It beggars belief. Much of the trade goes on undiscovered and vast numbers of animals, birds and reptiles die in transit.
	I am not sure about sustainable trade in endangered species; I believe that it is actually a contradiction in terms. I am all in favour of sustainable trade, which genuinely benefits developing countries, but we must be very careful before even considering the possibility of sustainable trade in seriously endangered species. There must be an absolute priority for protection and conservation.
	We need stronger legislation as soon as possible to tackle this abominable business, for reasons of conservation and of animal welfare. Of course there is legitimate trade, which is properly and carefully controlled, and that needs to continue. However, the criminals should be caught and punished and other would-be illegal traders must be suitably deterred.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, am pleased to take part in this debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for initiating it. For me, one paramount reason for debating this matter is that we cannot allow those who are irresponsible, to say the least, or are corrupt and ruthless exploiters, to say the most, to destroy vulnerable species, which I believe we have a duty to preserve for future generations.
	One of the difficulties that we face in the protection of endangered species is that such animals are often those that tend to be less popular with the public at large. Turtles, tortoises, vultures and sparrowhawks are not as attractive as furry seal pups with their big eyes, for example, which we see on many adverts against seal culling. There is not overall revulsion against the endangerment of such animals from the population at large.
	The WWF and the RSPCA have welcomed the Government's new proposals, which are currently out for consultation, and which involve tougher sentences for illegal wildlife traders. Both are pressing for those proposals to be implemented speedily. They are also campaigning for the Government to highlight what is happening in this relatively unknown area of crime. The trade is relatively unknown but it covers the sale of rare birds of prey, exotic reptiles, ivory and rhino horn, and it is claimed to be worth more than £5 billion per year. That sum is second only to the illegal drugs trade.
	The RSPCA has proposed a formula for dealing with this crime. It believes that there should be tougher penalties to reflect the suffering involved. It says:
	"For every animal that survives, hundreds die a most horrific death. All too often we see the gruesome consequences these endangered animals have suffered, at the hands of the inexperienced handlers".
	In the latest RSPCA journal, "Animal News", a graphic description of what we are facing is given. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, last year 23 rare birds of prey were pushed into plastic tubes in a bid to import them illegally into the UK from Asia. Their value on the black market was £35,000. They endured a 14-hour flight with their feet bound and had no food or water. Customs officers at Heathrow Airport found them in two suitcases. Six were already dead and another died later. Other examples include: young animals that are brought into this country, which are cute when they are small but which cannot be properly looked after in gardens or sheds when they grow to maturity; birds that need a much larger aviary than that which is provided for them, resulting in damage to their wings and feet; and reptiles and lizards that grow too large for a house. The right reverend Prelate mentioned an alligator in a phone box. Such animals are too large to be comfortably handled, so they are let out into the wild, where conditions are not conducive to them.
	Recent government proposals to overhaul animal welfare have been widely welcomed by the RSPCA, which described them as "radical". In particular, the society praised DEFRA for adopting its proposals for a statutory "duty of care" approach to protect not only wild and exotic animals in captivity but also domestic and farmed animals. John Rolls, the RSPCA director of communications, said:
	"This initiative is a massive step forward for animal welfare, and puts the responsibility on owners to provide all animals with a certain standard of care".
	In order for the Government's initiative to be built on, it is vital for this cruel trafficking to be highlighted, for explanations to be given—as is being done tonight—about what such cruelty entails and for information to be circulated about the ruthless individuals who are involved in it. This debate is part of that exposure. I ally myself with the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Hoyle.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate tonight. I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for bringing forward this important matter. I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Labour Animal Welfare Society and joint secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Animal Welfare.
	We must have measures in place to protect endangered species; otherwise, so much will be lost for ever. Future generations will not thank us for any inaction on our part. Much has been done to protect endangered species but the illegal trade still continues. The present laws, it seems, are not strong enough to deter those who are determined to carry out illegal trading in endangered species. The rewards can be much greater than any fines that may be imposed.
	I welcome the public consultation launched earlier this month by Elliot Morley, the Minister with responsibility for nature protection, to look at ways of tightening the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle said, wildlife crime is a booming business. On average, HM Customs and Excise seize thousands of items every year. Again, my noble friend Lord Hoyle pointed out that it has now become a lucrative sideline to drugs and arms trafficking and is often carried out by persistent and known offenders who have little regard for the effects on vulnerable species.
	The obnoxious people involved in the illegal drug trade have little respect for the human lives that they destroy, and they certainly have no care or concern for the protection of wildlife. The law must be clear. This illegal trade cannot be tolerated. Those caught and convicted must be dealt with in a manner in which robust messages are sent out. It should no longer be possible to make a profit out of this awful trade.
	As has been mentioned by several noble Lords, the WWF, in partnership with TRAFFIC, has been campaigning over the past year—I am sure that it is more than a year—to put a stop to the illegal wildlife trade and to bring an end to low sentences and nominal fines. We know that they are campaigning for tougher sentences and penalties and to increase the maximum sentence from two to five years' imprisonment. Again, as other noble Lords have mentioned, if the offence could lead to automatic arrest, that would certainly send out a very strong message to the criminals.
	The WWF and TRAFFIC say that they are,
	"delighted with the government's recently published new proposals for consultation. This is a significant step forward in stamping out illegal wild-life trade within the UK".
	It is vital that these changes become law as soon as possible. I am pleased to note, as others have done, that animal welfare groups have welcomed the consultation proposals. That is always a good sign that government thinking is on the right lines.
	I look forward to the Minister's response. She can be assured that the Government will have a good response from all animal welfare groups and from all those who care about the welfare of animals. I believe that the Government have shown their commitment to improving and strengthening laws in this field. I look forward very much to legislation coming forward on this matter as soon as possible.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, it is certainly very timely that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, has introduced his debate tonight. His suggestion that the regulations could be attached to the Criminal Justice Bill is very practical. From these Benches, I also congratulate the WWF, which has, indeed, campaigned tirelessly on this issue. It might otherwise have remained unseen and unspoken of. The fact that that organisation has researched the matter thoroughly deserves full recognition.
	Noble Lords have mentioned that the scale of the problem is huge. When I looked into the facts and figures, I was astonished at the size of the trade—some £3.5 billion per year. However, the figures are more depressing when we look at the number of animals involved. It is estimated that every year at least 350 million animals are traded. Although UK Customs seizes some 570 items per day, I believe we can safely assume that that is the tip of the iceberg. I ask the Minister how many prosecutions are brought following the seizure of 570 items per day. I realise that we are discussing stiffer penalties, but it would be invaluable to know how many prosecutions are brought under the present seizure system.
	By its nature, this trade targets the already rare. A vicious circle is then entered. Because it targets the already rare and lifts the creatures that remain in the wild, they then become more rare. Therefore, it is extremely urgent that we tackle the issue. Indeed, we owe it to other countries which try to tackle the problem themselves. I quote the example of Brazil, which has formed a task force to address the issue. There, individuals involved in the enforcement work are at very real risk—the type of risk to which I do not believe people in Britain would be subject. As the end market for this trade, I believe that we owe it to the countries in the developing world to tackle it from this end. We should take the impact on the biodiversity of those countries as seriously as we do the impact on our own.
	At present, there is a far more effective framework in place for the police to deal with those who commit crimes against the wildlife in this country—for example, by stealing rare eggs—than there is to deal with the international offender. Of course, UK rare species deserve protection, but I do not believe that they deserve far better protection than the wildlife of other countries. Because Britain is such an important end market, it is our duty to tackle the issue. It will be disgraceful if we remain a consumer nation of endangered species.
	I ask the Minister, too, whether it is simply the case that we are a consumer nation or whether we are also a primary entry point for the European trade in endangered species. Do other European countries have a better regime than we do in tackling the problem?
	Noble Lords have mentioned that the scale of the punishment does not match the scale of the profits that can be made. Various examples have been quoted and therefore I shall not quote endless others. I simply say that, if a pair of parrots can realise £50,000 and if, of every 10 birds or animals captured, nine are dead on arrival, it does not take much imagination to realise that the scale of the profits is still enormous.
	I believe that the National Criminal Intelligence Service is also to be congratulated on establishing the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit. I should be interested to hear a little more about the successes of that unit. I believe that it takes exactly the right approach and that a great deal of such crime could be solved through good intelligence. I am sure that the work of that unit will prove invaluable.
	I turn for a moment to the role of Customs and Excise and control at airports, in particular. I mention an issue that we on these Benches have highlighted constantly over the past 18 months—that is, the need for a more rigid regime, such as the use of sniffer dogs and so on, to counter the illegal meat trade. Much of that overlaps the issue that we are discussing. The bushmeat trade often deals in illegal species. Again, there is no point in increasing the penalties if Customs and Excise do not have adequate resources to catch the criminals.
	The Government's consultation on tougher sentences is certainly to be welcomed. Clearly we are dealing with big business and organised crime. We need to take an approach that recognises that. It is astonishing that until now offences under COTES were not deemed arrestable. This is big-time crime and it is time that we tackled it as such. The main difference and the reason why it has not been addressed before is that these are victimless crimes. Traditionally victims are seen as human beings. Ultimately we are the victims, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, because we suffer the loss as the planet loses its biodiversity and some of its most extraordinary creatures.
	I believe that unintentional acts also lead to the trade in endangered species. Although I realise that such acts are not the subject of the regulations, the Government could take some steps that would help. It would be helpful if, on leaving this country to go on holiday, we could pick up a leaflet detailing what we should not buy in the country to which we are travelling. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a website giving advice on health and safe practice which could also advise one of the products not to buy. Sometimes it is difficult to know what one should not buy. If one is approached by someone selling shell carvings, which would be nice souvenirs to buy and which one may consider would encourage the "trade not aid" attitude, one does not know whether the shells are from endangered species. A more pro-active approach to British people travelling abroad would be helpful.
	The CITES website, for which the Government are not responsible, is simply a dense list of Latin names, although one can opt for the more common names. It is not very enlightening, nor does it contain any pictures of endangered species. It provides little guidance for the British tourist abroad.
	On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, I do not want to believe that any trade in endangered species is sustainable. I believe that encouraging tourists to spend money seeing plants and animals in the wild in an appropriate manner, spending money on what is known as eco-tourism and ensuring that the money goes to the preservation of habitats abroad, is the most positive contribution that we can make. I hope that the Minister will take from these Benches every encouragement to introduce the regulations as soon as is practicably possible.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in 1978 my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, who is not in his place—the then Robin Hodgson MP—introduced a Private Members' Bill on this subject. Another of my colleagues in another place, David Amess, introduced another Private Member's Bill last year. It is a pity that neither of those Bills received a Second Reading. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for giving the House an opportunity to debate a subject which is close to our hearts.
	On 15th January this year the Minister issued a news release announcing the proposals for doubling the maximum prison sentences and strengthening controls on the banned trade. I believe that support for that has been shown around the House. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position as my understanding of the news release was that it was to extend the sentence to four years rather than to five. If it is four years, that means that it is not an arrestable offence. When other noble Lords were speaking I began to think that I had misunderstood the position. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. If the sentence is limited to four years, there will be huge problems.
	Since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has indicated, we on these Benches have been urging for action to be taken to stop the import of dead animals into this country, particularly of bushmeat and joints of fillets of beef. All kinds of items enter the country in personal luggage. It is an illegal trade that should be recognised and acted upon. Equally important is the risk of importing into this country disease which may affect our livestock, as all noble Lords who have participated in debates on the recent foot and mouth outbreak are all too aware.
	Recently a variety of programmes from "Farming Today" to "You and Yours" have contained complaints from contributors that it is possible to enter this country without observing any check on imports. Will the Minister place in the Library examples of the notices that the Government are apparently using to warn against the imports of animals and animal products and perhaps a list of locations where they can be viewed because so many people who enter the country say, "I did not see anything"?
	A report on Radio 4 news last Sunday morning stated that the trade in illegal animals, animal products and plants is proving worth while for organised crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, explained. For a long time the WWF has campaigned to stop illegal imports and for the imposition of swingeing sentences and crippling fines for those caught trading in, or keeping, banned items. As other noble Lords have said, that organisation wants the offences to be made arrestable, hence my earlier question. Were that the case, offenders would have to comply with police instructions; their premises and private property could be entered and searched without a warrant, and their fingerprints and DNA samples could be taken.
	When will the current government consultation close? How soon will the new sentences, if approved, come into being? Can we also have assurances from the Minister that the consultation will not be used as an excuse for delaying the action for which noble Lords are calling tonight? So often, sadly, consultation means delay. I mean that genuinely. More importantly, I ask the Minister to ensure that the sentence is five years.
	The evidence of damage being done to wildlife and to habitats all over the world is overwhelming; the evidence of how much is perpetrated illegally is compelling; and the constant demonstration of how this country connives sadly with the continued existence of a healthy illegal trade is shaming. I am so glad that the right reverend Prelate used that word—I have it in bold type in my speech—because it is a disgrace and something that we should attack.
	The right reverend Prelate also highlighted the suffering caused to animals which are killed in their own country prior to being imported here; but more importantly there is the cruelty involved in transporting animals around the world in difficult circumstances.
	We are constantly told that the police and Customs and Excise do not have the manpower to conduct a realistic operation. However, I suggest that police or Customs officers need not necessarily be responsible for such work. Are the Government considering ways in which help could be given with checking and searching? I also wonder whether similar searches of restaurants, pubs, clubs, shops, hotel kitchens and pet shops could be done by, for example, meat hygiene inspectors, who have to enter such premises to carry out checks anyway. Has there been any liaison between the Department of Health, which is now responsible for the Meat Hygiene Service, and DEFRA?
	We are told that notices are displayed at airports. I have checked to see what is happening on our airlines, and I understand that British Airways is working with DEFRA on a video to be shown on in-coming flights. Can the Minister expand on that?
	I am sorry that time has been so restricted tonight. The subject is dear to our hearts, and all the contributions have reinforced the importance of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I hope that the Government do not delay. They know that there is a problem; we do not need to establish that. We need to find solutions, and to find them quickly.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I echo with great feeling the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It is a pity that we have not had enough time tonight. I will, of course, write to all noble Lords who took part, as I will not be able to cover everything.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I fully agree with him and other noble Lords that we must do all we can as a government to reduce these disgraceful crimes. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, the world's wildlife is a priceless natural heritage, and we owe it to future generations to fight as hard as we can for its survival.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked detailed questions about the extent of the trafficking. I shall write to the noble Baroness about that. Where I offer to write to noble Lords, I will send a full reply on everything to every noble Lord who took part. As my noble friends Lord Hoyle and Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford—to mention a few—said, wildlife crime is big business. The cruelty is appalling. Ounce for ounce, some wildlife products such as rhino horn or deer musk are worth more than class A drugs or gold. There are huge financial incentives for people to traffic in wildlife products, and we are keen to respond firmly and effectively. We wish to make progress with the review, and I beg noble Lords who spoke so knowledgeably to respond fully to the consultation, further details of which I shall give in a moment.
	We welcome the opportunity to debate the issue. I am also grateful for the way in which all noble Lords stressed the importance of giving full support to the proposals in the consultation on the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997. The COTES proposals would strengthen the power of the police in investigating and prosecuting people who are illegally trading in endangered species in the UK. They would give the police power to enter premises and land where protected specimens were being used for commercial purposes, and once they are there, to require specimens and any relevant paperwork to be presented for inspection. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and other noble Lords that no powers are proposed that would allow the police to enter dwellings unless they had a search warrant or unless the occupier or owner was already under arrest. Clearer powers for police officers to require blood and tissue samples to be taken from wildlife specimens are also proposed.
	The proposals would clarify the powers of DEFRA's wildlife inspectors, by specifying more clearly when and why they carry out inspections. The inspectors would have powers, during inspections, to require specimens and paperwork to be presented and to require blood and tissue samples. New offences are also proposed which mainly follow on from the proposals for new powers. They include failure to present wildlife specimens or paperwork or obstructing police officers or wildlife inspectors in other ways. Finally and fundamentally, penalties will be increased across the board. The maximum gaol sentence for offences tried in magistrates' courts would be increased from three to six months. For offences tried in the Crown Court, the increase would be from two to five years. As the noble Baroness recognised, it would also make the offences arrestable, which should significantly improve the chances of achieving successful prosecutions for this awful trade.
	Those are important proposals and we shall be looking at the responses to the consultation paper very carefully. As the consultation period does not end until 4th April, it is important that noble Lords respond and encourage the many organisations with which they are obviously involved to do so likewise. After the responses have been received, copies of all responses will be available in the Library.
	In response to my noble friend Lord Hoyle, some proposals can be taken forward through a statutory instrument; others will need primary legislation. Subject to the outcome of the consultation process, the Government will be looking for an early legislative slot. My noble friend Lord Hoyle, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, asked whether the Criminal Justice Bill might be an appropriate vehicle. I assure all noble Lords that this possibility is being considered. We are currently having discussions with the relevant departments to explore the proposals further.
	It is clear from this debate that noble Lords will want any proposals put forward by the Government to have a smooth passage so we can ensure that these criminals are properly penalised for their crimes and are made to realise the damage that they are causing.
	As noble Lords have recognised, reviewing the COTES regulations is only part of the answer. In answer to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, the Government have taken three other significant steps to combat illegal wildlife trade. First, at the international level, the UK delegation, led by my honourable friend the Minister for Fisheries, Water and Nature Protection, was a key player at the conference of parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) held in Santiago, Chile, in November. The conference took a number of decisions of great importance, both for the development of CITES and for the wildlife species it protects. For example, it agreed to the UK's proposal to move the basking shark up to Appendix II of the convention and to provide similar protection for the whale shark, sea horses, mahogany and many turtle species. The experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, were fascinating. I am sure that we shall benefit from his knowledge as we take forward proposals following the consultation.
	In response to my noble friend Lady Gale and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, CITES imposes a complete trade ban on the most endangered species. Therefore, there is no question of sustainable trade in such species. I note the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, about the density of the website. We shall try to draw attention to that.
	We believe that these outcomes represent a triumph for persistent lobbying by the Government in support of its sustainable development agenda within CITES. We took further significant steps in April 2002 when we launched the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit, which complements the excellent work being done by police and Customs officers tackling wildlife crime at the international level. The unit was given £440,000. That, along with the £100,000 promised by police chief constables in England and Wales, and the support of the Scottish Executive, has ensured that the unit has the resources it needs to go ahead. It also aims to identify the main individuals involved in serious wildlife crime, gather intelligence in relation to priority species, including caviar, ivory, shahtoosh, parrots and birds of prey, and has access to databases.
	It is important to note—the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be interested in this point—that the Magistrates' Association information toolkit and sentencing guide will increase magistrates' awareness of the seriousness of environmental crime. The sentencing guidance will increase the importance of stressing the conservation implications of wildlife crime.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, raised different facets of sustainable development. It is important to try, as we did at the CITES conference in Santiago in November, to reach a compromise between the various countries in regard to stockpiles of raw ivory. Noble Lords will recognise that many of them suffer from poverty; for example, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. We believe that we achieved a fair and reasonable balance, but there is always a conflict between the needs of those in poor countries and those who want to protect various species.
	It is important that noble Lords respond to the consultation. The Customs and Excise operate a specialist CITES enforcement team based at Heathrow, which is widely recognised across Europe and the rest of the world as an example of how to tackle the problem. It is also important that we supplement the work carried out by the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit, which complements the excellent work done by police and Customs officers in tackling the crime at national and international level.
	It is important that punishment matches the crime and I have already outlined our proposals for increasing sentences. However, it is no deterrent if the available sentences are not used. We were therefore delighted that the Magistrates' Association joined my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment and a number of other key players in the fight against environmental crime to launch the information toolkit.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for intervening. I have not taken part in the debate. We discussed the important aspect of surveillance equipment during the course of the Animal Health Bill. I accept that increasing penalties will have a deterrent effect, but surely the key is catching people.
	Sophisticated surveillance equipment is available but I wonder whether it will be made available to those whose job it is to try to catch these people.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that the wildlife unit which I have detailed will be examining the most effective means of developing its work to counter such trade. If I can provide further information, I shall write to the noble Earl.
	I apologise for running over my time. In conclusion, I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for initiating the debate. I have not had time to discuss in sufficient detail the COTES proposal and I hope the House will understand why I said initially that I should be delighted to write to all noble Lords who have taken part. I welcome the support we have been given.
	In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the consultation is definitely not a means of delay. Quite the contrary: it is a means of achieving consensus for action. My noble friend has ensured that we have a good base on which to build that consensus and during the consultation period we must all press to ensure that not only is there agreement and consensus but a will to act with best speed to protect animals and species about which noble Lords have spoken with such passion.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.25 to 8.30 p.m.]

Courts Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 4.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
	"( ) Before appointing the members of a court administration council, the Lord Chancellor shall consult judges, lay justices and local authorities serving in the area."

Lord Dixon-Smith: At this stage we are dealing not so much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said are the Government's intentions but with what is written on the face of the Bill—that is, with the unrestrained power of the Lord Chancellor. I believe the noble Baroness when she says that, in practice, we shall be considering something rather different, but, in part, the amendments are addressed to that issue.
	Clause 4(3) states baldly that members of the court administration council,
	"are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor".
	Presumably that is a complete and factual statement of the intended position. But, with the Bill as drafted, the Lord Chancellor can appoint who he pleases, as he pleases, subject only to Clause 4(4).
	Amendment No. 18 in this group requires the Lord Chancellor to consult judges and magistrates before appointing members of a court administration council for a particular area. From what has been said, I am sure that that is the Government's intention, but it is not apparent from looking at the Bill.
	I know that there is an issue as to the significance of what is said on the Floor of this House and on the Floor of another place and its validity in law, but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why, if the things we say on the Floor of the House have meaning, we cannot put them on the face of the Bill where everyone can read them and people outside the House can understand what is going on.
	That is a particularly pertinent consideration in regard to Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21. Clause 4(4) states what each council "must" have. We discussed the word "must" before the adjournment. The subsection states that each council must have one member who is a judge—not two or three or five, but one. It states that each council must have one member who is a lay justice—again, not three or six—and so on. Amendment No. 21 relates to paragraph (d), which refers to,
	"two more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representatives of people living in that area".
	The subsection goes on to say that each council "may" have other members. "May" is not an instruction; "may" is a possibility.
	We had an interesting discussion on the size of the areas pertinent to the functions of court administration councils. The point was made by my noble friend Lord Waddington and others that the size of an area is relevant to the size of the councils.
	The Minister says that Clause 4(4) merely sets out the minimum requirement. It may do—and I am happy to take her word for it. But that is not what is on the face of the Bill. The Bill as drafted states:
	"Each council must have . . . one member who is a judge . . . one member who is a lay justice . . . two other members",
	and so on.
	Bearing in mind that we do not know the areas for which the councils will be responsible—even if we did, I suggest that one such member would not be sufficient—I propose that each council must have,
	"a minimum of 2 members who are judges . . . a minimum of five members who are lay justices",
	and, in subsection (4)(d),
	"four members chosen from among those who are elected representatives of the people living in the area",
	as opposed to the designation in the provision as drafted.
	The Minister has often spoken fulsomely—and I am grateful to her for it—of the need to involve local people and to make sure that the local community is fully committed to what is going on. I submit that, given the way in which the clause is worded, she has not fulfilled that ambition. I ask her to give serious consideration to this series of amendments. They go much further in committing the Government to the pledges made by the Minister than does the wording in the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is perhaps at a disadvantage in having to propose these amendments after the Minister has commented on the provisions. Clarity was provided in her indication that the number of members in the different groups listed were minima, which many of us understood to be the case anyway, because that is what has to happen. In addition, Clause 4(4) concludes with the statement that each council "may have other members". The Minister indicated that, because in all probability there will be local areas of different sizes, the provision would be suitable for court administration councils of different sizes.
	There are further strong objections to the amendments. Amendment No. 18 is surely unnecessary. Why should anyone—unless he or she has a perverse attitude towards the Bill—imagine that the Lord Chancellor would not consult appropriately in making the appointments? There is even greater objection to the other three amendments. Amendment No. 19 refers to judges being,
	"chosen by the judges serving in the area".
	Amendment No. 20 refers to lay justices being,
	"chosen by the lay justices serving in the area".
	In other words, they would be representatives rather than people appointed by the Lord Chancellor to do right by their own individual judgment, which is surely what we would want. Amendment No. 21 is even worse. It refers to,
	"four members chosen from among those who are elected representatives",
	without saying how they are to be chosen. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has given us an important opportunity to try to get some picture of how the Government expect the council to be composed. My approach shall be from that point of view.
	First, I have concerns about the mechanics. As my noble friend pointed out, the council must have,
	"one member who is a judge"
	and
	"one member who is a lay justice".
	But human frailty being as it is, what happens if, sadly, one of those members dies? If the council does not have a member who is a judge, does that invalidate its proceedings, or will provision be made for such circumstances in subsection (5)?
	Secondly, my noble friend refers to the way in which the representatives will be selected or elected. Subsection (4)(d) states that each council must have,
	"two more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representative of people living in that area".
	Can the Minister give the Committee some idea of what the Lord Chancellor may base that decision on? Will it be on socio-economic profile, for example? What kind of language will the Lord Chancellor seek to adopt in defining how people may be representative? Obviously, that is pertinent with regard to the Government's statements on the future composition of your Lordships' House.
	It is important that we have had this short debate because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden and my noble friend Lord Waddington commented before the dinner break, we are being asked to put the seal on something whose real shape and form we know not.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: At present, magistrates' courts committees are elected by other magistrates in the same division. It is right in principle that those appointed to the new councils should be representative in the sense that they have gained the respect and support of their colleagues. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate, whatever their number, that members be elected—magistrates from among magistrates, judges from among other judges, and elected representatives who at least have the support of the population who elected them to their local authorities.
	There are elements in your Lordships' House who like appointment; but, so far as I am concerned, legitimacy and accountability come through election. I support the amendments.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am pleased that the noble Lord has been consistent in his desire to have an ever-greater number of elections. I shall bear that in mind in responding.
	Before responding to the detail of each amendment, I ask the Committee to look at Clause 4(4) followed by subsections (5) and (6), which should be read together. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie, whose suggestion of the interpretation that we should give to Clause 4(4) is right. He is also right, therefore, to highlight the fact that "must" is attached to paragraphs (a) to (d), which give the minimum numbers required. Clause 4 also provides that each council "may have other members". That gives us flexibility so that, if necessary, there could be more than one judge.
	I know that on other occasions mention has been made of Crown Court judges. En passant, circuit judges in the civil division, not just Crown Court judges, and others will have to be accommodated in the list. Additional magistrates or members of any other category could also sit on the council. The Committee will have noted that there are to be,
	"two other members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to have appropriate knowledge or experience"
	and,
	"two more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representative of people living in that area".
	Let me deal with what happens if someone dies. Clause 4(5) states:
	"The Lord Chancellor must provide the councils with guidance about the way in which they should discharge their functions".
	However, Clause 4(6) specifically provides that:
	"The guidance may, in particular, include provision about the constitution, procedure and quorum of the councils".

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It may be convenient for the Committee if I raise this point now. My difficulty still is that subsection (4) provides for an absolute minimum. A quorum means nothing if the provision requires that the constitution of the councils includes one of this type of person and one of that. I am worried that someone's dying may therefore invalidate the body as a whole. The Government may wish to consider some redrafting; I do not meddle in this area unless I genuinely feel that the Government should look at something. Perhaps "must" could apply except in the circumstances provided by the guidelines. One should never make suggestions on the hoof—I should have spoken to my noble friend Lord Renton before I dared mention anything to do with drafting—but is the Minister prepared to consider that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am certainly happy to consider that. We have responded to people's fears and anxieties that there would not be a minimum by saying that there must be one. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we wish guidance and direction to be in place to ensure that there is provision for what happens in such and such an event. I am confident that we would be able to replace a member of the judiciary relatively quickly. There may, for instance, be arrangements as to what happens on the council. If a judge is ill and cannot attend, could a deputy stand in, such as a brother or sister judge in the same locality? We must look at the detail to ensure that such a provision is in place.
	The real reason that we wanted to include the word "must" in relation to the minimum number was to reassure those who ask how we can guarantee that there will be anybody on the council. They might think, if the councils are subject only to guidance, that a new Lord Chancellor could go off on a frolic of his or her own and say that no judges should be on the council. We wanted the minimum to be provided for, but I understand the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I hope that we will be able to do what is necessary in guidance.
	Let me deal with the amendments in sequence, starting with Amendment No. 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. One effect of the Bill will be to end the requirement for local authorities to fund 20 per cent of magistrates' court expenditure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, knows, subsection (7) states:
	"A council is not prevented from exercising its functions because of a vacancy among its members or a defect in the appointment of a member".
	That deals specifically with the point and adds to what I said earlier.
	Local authorities used to be responsible for 20 per cent of magistrates' court expenditure. They will continue to be a valuable stakeholder, but I do not believe it appropriate in the circumstances for them to be formally involved in the appointments process, especially as they are not involved in the appointment of MCC members. It will place a burden on them which they do not have currently and which they may not welcome when the funding procedures have been changed.
	In devising an appointments process, we will want stakeholders, in particular the judiciary and magistrates, to have confidence in the way appointments to the council are made. We will be consulting with stakeholders on the appointments process at a series of events to be held between January and April. For example, a representative of the local magistracy may be asked to sit on a panel that assesses applicants for the posts against clear criteria. Such an arrangement would be more appropriate than a general consultation.
	As well as being inappropriate, the process that the noble Lord proposes seems unduly cumbersome. For the membership of the court administration councils we shall seek a transparent and open appointment process in which members are appointed for the skills that they can contribute to the efficient administration of all the courts.
	Much of this discussion has been foreshadowed. Amendment No. 18 relates to who will be on the council and how they will be selected. I have outlined that the process will be transparent. Members could include professional judges, magistrates, people with knowledge of the local area, which might include a local councillor, for example, and people with appropriate knowledge of the work of the courts, which might include a volunteer from the witness support programme, for example. Appointments will be made on merit and will be fair. There will be open competition, with members selected who have the relevant knowledge. It is vital that the opportunity to become a member of the council is open to all sections of the community. In accordance with the Cabinet Office guidelines on public appointments, we are committed to achieving the equal representation of women and men, pro rata representation of members of ethnic minority groups and increased participation of disabled people. Various bodies in the public and non-profit sectors can provide advice and guidance in meeting these commitments.
	How exactly will we do this? We can ensure that the opportunities are advertised nationally and locally. As well as the press, we can use other means, such as local open days, websites and advertisements on court notice boards or in public libraries, citizens advice bureaux and local community centres. We can also ensure that our commitment to encouraging minority groups to apply is clearly stated in any recruitment literature. We will continually monitor the selection process to ensure that this commitment is being fulfilled.
	We want to ensure that the job specification for what members will be required to do is drawn as tightly as possible for the application process. The process will be competence and skills-based. We need to bear in mind that we are looking for people who can contribute towards the administration of local justice—people who can think strategically, focus on the delivery of services to the local community, be objective and make a positive personal impact. We are not looking for professionally qualified people such as accountants and personnel officers. These roles will be undertaken by officials in the new agency. We want people who can take the wider view without constraint. I hope that is a helpful outline of the way in which we intend to approach the issue.
	On Amendment No. 20, Clause 4 requires each council to have a minimum of one lay justice. I have already spoken about flexibility and responsiveness to local situations, which will be vital to the success of the councils. In particular, local membership will need to vary. I therefore invite the Committee to take into account all that I said earlier about the need for that. We think that as a result the councils will be properly representative, as we desire.
	The court administration councils are not intended as a substitute for wide consultation with magistrates and judges. We intend that the guidance to councils will include advice on when they should involve Bench chairmen, local magistrates, the judiciary or other stakeholders in their deliberations. The local chief officer will be under an obligation to involve the magistracy, just as the Court Service is obliged now under the terms of the framework document. Benches of magistrates associated with individual magistrates' courts will also still have influence over the operation of those courts. For example, they will continue to be consulted administratively about decisions to assign and replace justices' clerks. Benches and Bench chairmen must all feel that they have productive relationships with their clerks and administrators.
	We want magistrates to have a say in how they should be consulted. As I said, the answer may vary from area to area. It is right that the arrangements we put in place should allow that. We will explore whether it would be appropriate for the court administration councils to establish consultative arrangements with the magistrates in their areas through, for example, a consultative panel. We will also make it a requirement that magistrates on the councils should be serving in the local justice area for which the council is responsible. That seems to be a reasonable requirement, and we shall give it further consideration. I very much heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other Members of the Committee said about that.
	Finally, we have not yet decided on the process for selecting individuals to sit on the council. We are clear, however, that the process must be fair and open and that the aim is to select the individuals with the most appropriate skills and experience. We want the process of appointing magistrates to the council to command the respect of the magistracy and of other stakeholders. I am not convinced that the procedure recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would achieve that objective. As I said, the appointments process is one of the issues on which we will be consulting in events from 30th January until April. The appointments process will be in line with the Code of Practice on Public Appointments. We will want to learn from the experience of the MCC members who are appointed by selection panels of local magistrates.
	I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Waddington: Can the noble Baroness help me with regard to Clause 4(6)? It states:
	"The guidance may, in particular, include provision about the constitution . . . of the councils".
	It is the constitution that I am worried about. Will we in Parliament have knowledge of that guidance?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are very sensitive to what a number of Members of the Committee have said about the need to look at the guidance. We are taking it back and investigating what opportunities there may be for scrutiny. We certainly understand the need that has been expressed both today and previously. It is important that Members of this place—and perhaps eventually Members of another place—have a much better and clearer idea of exactly what will go into the guidance. We will try to do that as best we can.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for answering my concerns about Clause 4(4). She directed me, very properly of course, to subsection (7), to which I was going to refer in later debates. The difficulty is that that subsection could inspire the very fear that she was rightly trying to allay. It could be alleged that subsection (7) is a way of getting round the minimum set in subsection (4). However, I do not seek to take the issue further now. I think that she and I are trying to reach the same objective. I am just not convinced that the current drafting helps to take us there.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that it does help. Earlier, the noble Baroness expressed the tension as follows: what if we do not have the minimum number and this provision is cited? We are confident that all the councils will have at least one judge, one magistrate and the other minimum numbers for which we have provided in paragraphs (a) to (d). It is likely, however, that a number of councils will have more than one of each. The expectation is that a great number of them will have more than one.
	Subsection (6) sets out the guidance that may include provision about the constitution. That minimum will therefore be preserved. Subsection (7) ensures that, in the event of the circumstances that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, outlined—such as a member's death or illness—the council's acts are not invalidated by a short hiatus. That is why I am attached to the minimum; I would not want it to be removed or in any way watered down. Subsection (4) concludes by stating that we may have more than that minimum. In the guidance and other constitutional arrangements, we have an opportunity to state what should happen in the event of a death or similar event in order to make the arrangement valid. Subsection (7) specifically deals with the hiatus.
	So it is unnecessary for us to undermine or touch that provision. However, several noble Lords have expressed their anxiety about certainty and we want to give the assurance that there will be no games playing and that that will be the least that the councils will have. Of course, we hope that many of them will have many other constituents, dependent on the needs of their area.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I listened carefully to the Minister but she has not answered my question. Why is straight appointment by the Lord Chancellor preferable to some form of representation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I assume that the noble Lord suggests that all the posts be put up for election. Perhaps we could have an election by the judiciary. I invite him to think for a moment of the prospect of electing a High Court judge to sit on the matter and how long the college might take to decide on who needs that. It has always been convention that the divisions in the High Court have been able to come to an accommodation on how they allocate judicial time to fulfil such requirements.
	The magistrates' courts have had the benefit of the panel. We shall consider the different nature of those whom we want to attract. However, at present, we do not have an election process for all public appointments. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that it would be extremely difficult if we did.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting discussion. It has at its roots the question of ownership of the local consultative council. Will it be a creature of the Lord Chancellor, or will it, as it properly must, be a creature of the local community? I hear what the noble Baroness has had to say. Our difficulty, as the Bill is drafted, is that the council could be interpreted as being the creature of the Lord Chancellor. I am clear about what she said, which is that it must be the creature of the local community. However, this is not a question of who holds the title deeds; it is a much more subtle question.
	My amendments were intended to enable us to explore that question. We have had a useful debate. The noble Baroness may find it frustrating to have to keep repeating herself, but that is part of the purpose of the operation. Some interesting points have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made clear that, if the council is to be effective, its members must have the support of their colleagues in the area. There is a question about how we arrive at that result, but if the council is to have the respect of the area that it is supposed to serve, that is essential. We cannot avoid that.
	The noble Baroness said that the Bill ends the requirement of local authorities to fund 20 per cent of the expenditure. I accept that. However, I do not see the relevance of that to the constitution of the court administration councils. Court administration councils will have some local representation but that is not related to the question of funding, as I understand it. It is related to the question of having people on the court administration councils who know the area, who know what is going on, who know what the political—with a small "p"—questions are and who know the political background as a matter of instinct without being necessarily political. In that sense the question of expenditure is not relevant. Local authorities in the area of any court administration council will still be stakeholders in the area. If one completely ignores the question of elected members, the matter can become fraught with difficulty.
	I heard what the noble Baroness said and will study it with some care. I rather infer from what she said that if I simply tabled an amendment stating what I considered to be the minimum in this matter she would not object to it although she might consider that it was unnecessary. I may be tempted to do that at a later stage. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 21A:
	Page 3, line 10, after "must" insert "by order"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 21A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21B and 22. I can speak more briefly than I had expected due to the helpful intervention of my noble friend Lord Waddington.
	These amendments relate to the issuing of guidance. I note that the Constitution Select Committee's report on the Bill drew attention on page 4, paragraph (b), to the procedural requirements for guidance which will be given by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 4 as it stands. The committee's report states that it is not clear whether such guidance is to be binding on the councils, whether it is to be publicly available and whether it may contain specific as well as general directions. I seek to probe the Government on those matters. I have read the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the committee. Will the Government give us assurances about what they will do between now and Report as regards considering the way in which these matters may be brought before Parliament for scrutiny?
	In the course of the discussion that the Minister was kind enough to hold recently—those who attended were, regrettably, a select few but we obtained good value from the Minister and her advisers—and, indeed, during the course of discussion tonight, the Minister has said that the Government are prepared to consider how they can make the functions of the CACs more clearly subject to parliamentary scrutiny. One way of doing that that was mentioned at the briefing meeting was to refer to the guidance in more forceful terms in the Bill. I refer to issuing the guidance by order. Has the Minister considered that matter further since the briefing meeting? Can she tell us the results of that consideration? Will she undertake between now and Report to consider the matter so that if I were to table an amendment on Report she would be able to respond to it more fully at that stage? I do not propose to take the matter further at this point. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I strongly support these amendments. To some extent the debate we are having on this group of amendments, like the debate we had on the two previous groups, is really a curtain raiser to the major debate which we shall have on the next group. That group will try fundamentally to replace the scheme of the Bill by creating the area court management boards, which are intended to fulfil—perhaps rather more than fulfil—the role that we thought was envisaged in the White Paper of the area consultative councils as local management boards. One considers the amendment on the assumption that the amendments in the next group will not ultimately succeed, so one is looking at a situation in which area consultative councils still exist.
	If that is so, the amendment would be essential, because the guidance is crucial to the whole operation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I was present at the briefing meeting at which the Government told us about all sorts of their excellent plans for what the court administration councils would do. That came close to what we envisage as a proper role for the local management boards. The trouble is that there is nothing of that whatever in the Bill.
	That is a major problem for us. Even if what the Government now propose were carried into effect, nothing would prevent any future Lord Chancellor or Minister of justice from changing the whole scheme and producing something much more subject to central control, with much less local involvement. Therefore it seems essential that, if we cannot manage to get the scheme into the Bill, it should at least be in regulations, which are subject to parliamentary control. In view of the importance of the matter, we believe that approval of the guidance should require the affirmative procedure, as proposed in Amendment No. 21B.
	Surprisingly, Clause 4(6) states:
	"The guidance may, in particular, include provision about the constitution, procedure and quorum of the councils".
	That quintessentially seems something that one would expect to see in regulations, not merely in guidance. If that becomes material because we are unable to force the Government to put the matter into the Bill, we would regard the amendment as an obviously inferior but essential alternative.

Lord Waddington: My only criticism of the amendment is that it does not go far enough, for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It seems extraordinary that we should want guidance about the way in which councils should discharge their functions to be laid down by order, but should not at the same time demand that provision about the constitution, procedure and quorum of the councils be laid down by order. I would like the noble Baroness to explain why the Government do not recognise that it is important that the power in subsection (6) be possible to implement only by order.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As I said at the meeting, I want to say straightaway that, in terms of what the Government want and what Members of the Committee have expressed, we are very much at one. That particularly applies to what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, have indicated today, and to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about the purpose and the nature of these issues. We are considering how to give voice to that in a meaningful and satisfactory way. I understand absolutely that Members of the Committee are concerned to ensure that the guidance receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
	I have explained why I am not in a position to undertake to provide the Committee with a draft now. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that those who use the services offered by the courts, those who dispense justice within them and those who work to support the delivery of justice within them are consulted throughout the process of developing the new system of courts administration. The series of stakeholder events, which I have now mentioned on a number of occasions—they are planned from the end of this month through to April—will involve them in developing that guidance.
	I have noted the concerns that Members of the Committee have expressed in general on this issue. I will consider all the amendments that have been put forward, with a view to ensuring that once the guidance is developed, it will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I can say now that I am not opposed in principle to the guidance taking the form of a statutory instrument, although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is probably right to say that it would probably be more appropriate to do that in regulations rather than in an order.
	Members of the Committee will have noted that all the technical provisions about proposed statutory instruments are located in one place; that is, Clause 97. That would be the place in which to specify whether the negative or affirmative resolution procedure should be used. I cannot give a guarantee at this stage but I can certainly say that we are looking at the matter in a concrete way to try to ensure that the best route is taken to give some reassurance in a form that the noble Lord finds acceptable. We will therefore need to consider the spirit of the amendment in the context of the drafting of the Bill as a whole. We very much take on board the thrust of what is said in this regard.
	I hope to be able to give the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, a more positive and definitive response on Report, but I am not able to do so now. We must consider all that is said in relation to the other parts of the Bill to establish how best to manage what has to go where. I am happy to assure Members of the Committee that we are by no means resistant to the thrust of the comments that have been made.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks, which may describe her overall approach in this regard—that she is prepared to look at the matter. My noble friend Lord Waddington is right: these amendments definitely do not go far enough and I should not have pressed them on that basis. I tabled them as the opening salvo—a gentle one—in the hope that we can entice the Government into doing the right thing. Of course, the opening salvo may turn into a deafening roar on Report if we are not able to find the right way forward in this regard. Because I am assured that we will go into much greater detail on Report, I shall not take up the time of Members of the Committee further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 21B and 22 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new Clause—
	"AREA COURTS MANAGEMENT BOARDS
	(1) For the purpose of implementing this Part, England and Wales shall be divided into areas.
	(2) For each area there shall be a board (referred to in this Act as an "area courts management board") which is to exercise the functions conferred on it by virtue of this Act and any other enactment.
	(3) Schedule (Area courts management boards) (which makes provision about the constitution of area courts management boards, their powers and other matters relating to them) is to have effect.
	(4) References in this Act or any other enactment to an officer of an area courts management board are references to—
	(a) any member of the staff allocated to an area courts management board to exercise the functions of an officer of the board, and
	(b) any other individual exercising functions of an officer of an area courts management board by virtue of section 5(2).
	(5) The initial areas for the purpose of implementing this Part are—
	(a) the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (police areas), and
	(b) the area comprising the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London Police Area.
	(6) The division of England and Wales into areas for that purpose may be altered from time to time by order made by the Lord Chancellor."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 30. These amendments appear in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
	I propose to set the scene by explaining why we tabled the amendments. That history will be well known to Members of the Committee but it may not be as well known to those who read our debate in Hansard. I leave the meat of this matter—the reasons behind the amendments and the way in which they work—to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to explain later.
	Briefly, the effect of the three amendments would be to create a structure that we believe is preferable to the CACs. We believe that it is vital for the local structure to be the authoritative voice of local justice. I am grateful to all those who have briefed us on these matters—in particular, the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Magistrates' Association, both of which support the amendments.
	I note, in particular, that over the past couple of months the Magistrates' Association has taken care to consult its 30,000-plus members to ensure that there is support for any action that it might take over these amendments. Indeed, members feel so strongly that they have written directly to noble Lords on this side of the Chamber. I have received letters from, among others, the branches at Bromley and East Yorkshire, whose members very much support the amendments that we have put forward today and who object to the Government's plans for CACs.
	I make it clear from the start that none of us will argue for the status quo. We have not objected to the abolition of magistrates' courts committees per se, and we have not sought to oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. But we do want to move on to a better system for delivering local justice. We argue that, if the committees are abolished, the replacement structure must be better. At present, we do not consider that the CAC structure is better. We are trying to find a system that is.
	At Second Reading, we went into detail about how we felt that the Government had done a U-turn. I shall not repeat all those arguments now. In her letter to noble Lords and, again, tonight, the Minister said that what is important is the substance of the role, and not the name. I agree with her. But the difficulty is that we say that the substance of the role of CACs as set out in the Bill is simply not acceptable. It is not merely the name; it is the substance. It is not what the Government first offered in their White Paper. We are afraid that we shall end up with a mere talking shop which will not earn local credibility or respect.
	Very briefly—as I said, I shall leave the meat of this issue to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—the amendments are as follows. Amendment No. 23 seeks to insert a new clause to establish area courts management boards. They will enable national priorities to be interpreted in the light of local circumstances and local needs. The boards will be corporate bodies. Their boundaries will match those of the 42 criminal justice areas for England and Wales. They will be based on police areas but will treat the Metropolitan and City of London as one criminal justice area rather than two police areas. I set that out in response to a comment made by the Minister. I hope that the explanation is sufficient.
	The objective of the structure is to maintain and enhance local capacity to meet the Government's aim of improving efficiency by creating common boundaries across all the agencies in the criminal justice system. Our objective is to make the local bodies definitely the authoritative voice of local justice. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: I do not know whether it is appropriate to intervene at this point. If it had not been for the matter of proposing the resolution, I would have sought to intervene before the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, sat down. This series of amendments deals with the functions, powers, constitution and so on of court management boards. Are the amendments meant to apply not only to the administration of magistrates' courts but also to the administration of justice in the Crown Court and county courts so that the present existing unified system under the Court Service would be changed completely to that of a locally administered service in X number of areas?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has jumped ahead. I was trying to present the case in a dual way in that I would set the scene and the real explanation would come from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who, as a lawyer, is better able to provide that. This is passing the buck and enjoying it.
	The amendments are put forward for a sensible reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will be aware, both these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches have worked very closely on this matter with the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Magistrates' Association. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to jump in and answer the noble Lord's question, which, I believe, should properly come at the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. However, if he is still unhappy at the end of that, I shall certainly be delighted to come back and answer any further questions.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I believe that I can answer the pertinent question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, by saying: largely, yes. The effect of these three long amendments is to turn the tables on Clauses 4 and 5 so that the ultimate, decisive powers will rest with the board—I shall speak to that in a moment—rather than as Clauses 4 and 5 state, with the Lord Chancellor. We understand how fundamental the change is; we also understand that there will be ramifications in the directions that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, enunciated and there is no amour propre about the particular arrangement here. If necessary, we shall have time to change the wording and the disposition of provisions before the next stage.
	We are dealing with an argument about where power should lie ultimately, although it has been heavily disguised by what the Government have said and by what the noble Baroness has said here and at the meeting. We are not dealing with recommendatory or consultative power, but with real decisive power. On these Benches we are at one with the Conservative Benches and we believe that no good case, no remotely sufficient case has been made for what would be a radical departure from an age-old system that requires improvement and requires movement in the direction in which other parts of the Bill take it, but which does not deserve this fundamental upheaval in terms of powers.
	I shall briefly read from what the Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate said in its 1998–99 report which was confirmed the following year:
	"on the whole the MCC structure seems still to work well. It has shown itself capable of reform, and of increasing efficiency and effectiveness. The challenges help MCCs to strengthen their membership and improve their procedures to meet the new requirements".
	This debate is bizarre. Again and again in her replies the Minister does not refer to the provisions in the Bill, but to provisions that are not in the Bill and to proposals that the Government may advance, whether in the form of guidance or whatever else in the future. We must bear in mind that on this Bill we have the cart before the horse, with the consultation coming after the Bill is debated. We are at the start of much of the consultation process.
	It is all very well for the Minister to say that hereafter we shall have to put flesh on the bones; it would be better to say that we should put flesh on the skeleton. So much of the essential substance of what should be in the Bill is not there. The noble Baroness is never less than gracious and never less than helpful. But it is not sufficient or right for the House to deal with such a hugely important piece of legislation on the basis of trust, hope and expectation, particularly when it concerns where power lies. The power is being removed from where it lies at present to another place, in fact to the Lord Chancellor who is centralising the whole of this unified system in his own hands.
	Where power is concerned, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. When dealing with the Government and with Whitehall I suggest that a bird in local hands is worth 10 in any Whitehall bush. It is all very well to talk about the efficiency and improvements that the Government have asserted will result from their grand designs, but it rarely appears to come to pass. There is an amount of scepticism among magistrates. They look at the centralising reforms in education, health and transport and they are not encouraged. If one compares the rhetoric that preceded reformation Bills with the aftermath, one will understand. We have been through such a situation with the county police committees and probation committees. There was precisely the same kind of attempt to centralise ultimate power in Whitehall—in a Minister—and, wisely, we rejected it.
	The central issue of whether this is a shift from what preceded it needs to be knocked on the head. It would be like something from Alice in Wonderland if we were to pretend that the White Paper was not different from what is in the Bill. I shall remind the Committee what the White Paper said:
	"We expect the decision making to be decentralised to the local management boards".
	That is not consistent with Clauses 4 and 5, however eloquent or ingenious the Government's advocate. The clauses give no decision-making powers to the councils, which are not management boards anyhow.
	We should examine what is provided for in the clauses. The Lord Chancellor appoints every person; the Lord Chancellor gives guidance; and the Lord Chancellor receives recommendations to which he must have regard. The 30,000 magistrates in this land think of the recommendations that they are asked to make about court closures. There is a right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor with regard to a court closure, the sort of appeal that the noble Baroness said that we might get for certain other matters with regard to the Bill. The Committee will know that the number of occasions on which an appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a court closure has been upheld is infinitesimal. There is scepticism about such arrangements.
	I also notice that the issue of the composition of the councils has come up several times. The noble Baroness said that the Government had provided for—I noted the wonderful phrase that she used—"an irreducible number" of magistrates on the councils. I can tell the Committee why it is an irreducible number: it is one. I marvel at the passion with which the Minister assuages the fears of paranoid magistrates. At the moment, there are 12 on magistrates' courts committees. What is one among six?
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said, there is huge discontent among magistrates. They are slow to anger. They are judges. They are deliberative, sensible people. However, they are now extremely concerned about what is in train. If the Magistrates' Association is thought to have been slow to gird up its loins, that is because it has consulted 30,000 magistrates. It is a charity and feels inhibited about the strength with which it expresses its views.
	I shall read another document that may help us better to understand why the magistrates have no faith in an administration that will not put anything in the Bill. I have a court circular that was issued at the end of November, under the name of Mark Swales, the criminal courts' business redesign manager. It says:
	"The Bill provides for a summary offence to be treated in the same way as an indictable offence and will allow proceedings to be brought anywhere in England and Wales, rather than just in the 'LJA' where the offence is committed. This will have the effect of reducing delay by allowing bulk processing of cases and will allow specialist courts within an area to hear certain types of cases.
	Whilst the prosecutor will decide the court, they will do so in accordance with directions to be issued by the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, as to where the cases are to be heard. The directions will state that people should appear before a court in the local justice area in which the offence was committed, or suspected to have been committed unless other factors are applied, such as the hearing of bulk issue cases in a particular court, the hearing of cases by a specialist court or the convenience of witnesses and victims".
	That sort of scenario—a magistrates' court system run by administrators who think in terms of bulk case management—has added greatly to the anxiety felt by all justices. Those in east Yorkshire put it rather well, when they said that,
	"the most important feature of the current magistrates' court system was that local justice was dispensed by local magistrates in local magistrates' courts, managed by a local magistrates' courts committee".
	The Government talk about the increased accountability of the new councils, but no one has made the point that lay justices are intrinsically accountable in a way that professional judges never are. They are butchers, bakers and candlestick makers from the community over which they preside. That is the last surviving element of justice of the people, by the people and for the people. If we take away from them the powers that they have left to organise justice in their petty-sessional divisions and in their magistrates' courts areas, their belief is that a number of factors will follow from that. Local magistrates' independence will be affected; the dictates of administrative convenience—the so-called efficiency which is one of the statutory aims of all this—will override the interests of justice; their jobs will be less interesting; their roles will have less status; and local justice will go down the pan. And local justice—although much lip service is paid to it—is the cornerstone of the lay justice system. If the magistrates cease to have familiarity with their localities and their people, and they cease to be able to have regard to local sentiment, a great deal will have been lost. It is no good the Government pretending that this issue is not part and parcel of the consequences of going down this road.
	Therefore, I say to the Government that they must take on board that decisive powers must rest with local management boards. Nothing else will do. It is an irreducible requirement. The Government must understand that; it is no good relying on 101 elements of soft soap.
	Finally, the delivery of justice is hugely complex. There are always elements that can be improved. However, by and large, this is a system that has stood the test of time. I urge the Government to have regard to the prospect of losing some of the best magistrates now serving—as is happening in some counties. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, looking askance at that. The evidence from magistrates' courts committees is—this is not my view, but at Second Reading I quoted from the report of the Suffolk magistrates' courts committee—that good magistrates are folding their tents and saying, "Enough is enough". Recruiting the best magistrates is becoming more difficult. The decline of status and morale are devastating to the magistracy as a whole.
	I do not need to spend much time on the amendments because they are self-evident. If anything, they are too long. But it is abundantly clear that the proposal does not simply remove all power from or retain all power with the proposed area courts management boards. In Schedule 1, the Lord Chancellor is given a whole raft of intervening powers. In subsection (7) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 28:
	"The Lord Chancellor may determine whether any provision made by an area courts management board under this section is sufficient".
	He can intervene with a management order under subsection (12); he can intervene in the composition of the boards; he can give direction to the boards. Therefore, it will not be sufficient or satisfactory for the Government to pretend that this is denying the Lord Chancellor the necessary powers to take steps where a management board is failing in its tasks.
	I shall leave these three amendments at that, but urge them on the Committee.

Lord Jones: Within these amendments is the core of the belief that our courts should be rooted in the locality. Any mooted central control in these debates has been cast as negative and unwelcome. Ministers disagree and give assurances. Reform and value for money there must be and, perhaps occasionally, even court closures. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must surely be in leadership in this.
	My anxiety is that as a consequence of necessary reforms our local magistrates, their courts and their structures are cast down. That is what I fear. I fear that something highly valuable and very precious will be lost in the consideration of new legislation. My noble friend Lady Scotland is leaning over backwards to do the right thing and to assuage our concerns. I want to emphasise that magistrates give so much, but I note that many are standing down. Recruitment is becoming more difficult, particularly of younger magistrates whom we now need.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for succinctly expressing his support for the amendments. He referred to the Magistrates' Association, to court closures and to the organisation Justice. Magistrates are volunteers. They serve with distinction and often for decades. They become expert, wise, mature and capable of dispensing good local justice. My judgment is that they might lose confidence if they see any significant loss of the current local grounding of the organisations within which they now serve. The ultimate and decisive powers should remain in the locality. That was the cry from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, during his impassioned remarks today.
	The magistrates are local and accountable. The blunt fact is that the system of the magistrates' courts as described is successful. They are working. It is a British phenomenon and it has emerged slowly. It should not be humbled or dismantled. My noble friend the Minister is not intent on premeditated mischief and she will always listen and respond to widespread concerns throughout England and Wales.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones. We live perhaps 10 miles apart in north-east Wales and it may be that our confidence in the magistracy depends on the locality from which we come. I strongly suspect that the magistrates of north-east Wales are replicated all over England and Wales and are all of the same quality.
	It is interesting to see how the Government have reached this position. The Auld report made no recommendation. The report at page 294, paragraph 73, having recommended the abolition of the Courts Service and the magistrates' courts committees, stated:
	"It would be for others to determine the most practical way to link administratively and geographically the three Criminal Court divisions that I propose and the civil and family courts".
	We are concerned with two divisions and not three. The issue next surfaced in the House of Commons on 9th July 2002 when Yvette Cooper said:
	"It is important that decisions about courthouses and the provision of services at the local level be taken as far as possible at the local level, by the people who have the experience and the knowledge of local circumstances".
	She is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department and she refers to "decisions". She went on:
	"That should continue. It is part of the current system that it is a matter for magistrates courts committees in the first instance to make decisions about court venues and where services should be provided. We need to retain such local decision-making. It is also important that rural decisions are taken into account.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/02; col. 736.]
	In the White Paper, Justice for All, published in that same month, the proposal was for unification of the courts administration as we know it within the single agency. It was said that the key was the proposal to establish local management boards, which would continue to provide a role for magistrates in the strategic management of their courts but which would also bring on board the local judiciary and members drawn from the wider community. Nothing could be more straightforward than those two statements—in understandable, clear English—from Yvette Cooper and from the White Paper, Justice for All.
	But then the English began to get turgid and difficult to follow. A written statement was laid in the Library on 4th December, which stated:
	"Court Administration Councils will work in partnership with local chief officers. They will make a non executive contribution to the development of local strategy for delivering high performance and securing value for money within the national policy and performance framework".
	Writing on 9th January to the Constitution Committee, as it appears in its third report, the Lord Chancellor said:
	"Court administration councils will ensure that local people have a real say in the running of courts in their area. They will make a non-executive contribution to the development of local strategy for delivering high performance and will work in partnership with local chief officers to do this.
	The Lord Chancellor continued:
	"The new agency will not be centralised. It will be responsive to local needs through a network of empowered local managers and accountable through the community-focused Court Administration Councils. These bodies will bring together representatives of the local community and the judiciary, lay and professional, with real influence on the administration of the courts. Where decisions are best made locally they will be".
	That is jargon. I know that the Minister objected to the word "guff" when I used it in a previous Committee meeting, so perhaps I may put it in my own language—that is, geiriogrwydd—which, for the benefit of Hansard, when translated means "guff".
	We need to pin down precisely what the role of these councils is to be. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote to us all and tried to set out what was to be the role. She stated:
	"the Court Administration Councils will approve the area's strategic plan—this will include the area's estate strategy (including any proposals to open or close courthouses); its staffing structures and recruitment and retention strategy; and spending priorities for the year, including any major local projects".
	Let us pause there for a moment. The councils are to approve these matters. What if they do not approve them? Suppose a council is in conflict with someone who is administering the courts as part of the agency; suppose there is a difference between them, and the councils do not approve. What happens then? We do not learn that from this document.
	The letter continues:
	"Throughout the year, Councils will receive regular performance reports and will propose remedial action, where necessary".
	Suppose that the proposals are not accepted or carried out. What happens then?
	"At the end of the year, Councils will contribute to their area's annual report".
	What does that mean? What are they to contribute? A rundown of what has happened during the year?
	"Local managers will be accountable to them as well as to the national agency if they fail to deliver the plans that they have agreed with them".
	How are local managers to be accountable? Will the councils have the power of hiring and firing them or anyone employed in the agency? I very much doubt it. I very much doubt that the councils will have any redress except a right of access, as the letter states, to the national chief executive about any issue, including managerial performance.
	So the people appointed to the councils by the Lord Chancellor—they will not be elected; there is no democratic element in the process—will be there, flapping on the sidelines, without any power to take decisions. How can we go from what Yvette Cooper said in another place about the need to retain local decision-making to the position now encapsulated in the Bill? And why is it expressed in such involved language, which in effect conceals the lack of power that the councils will have? It may be accidental. I cannot imagine the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, ever writing in this kind of style.
	There is a further passage that I think is rather nice. The agencies are to take a "holistic" approach—as though we are talking about aromatherapy! That is not the language of government Ministers, yet that is what is appearing. In the course of our debates in Committee, we must get through all that and pin the Government down—not with the kind of bile that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was referring to, but pin them down nevertheless—as to what they mean.
	If the genuine intent is to allow magistrates to retain a power of decision-making—as was originally promised to them—we shall avoid at future stages of the Bill divisions which may well lead to all kinds of conflicts between ourselves and another place. That is one way to proceed. But it would be much better for the Government to explain in clear, simple language, as Yvette Cooper did on 9th July last year, what the councils are about.

Lord Waddington: Surely, by now, the Minister must be aware that there is a feeling of betrayal over the proposal that advisory bodies should take the place of magistrates' courts committees. The wording in the White Paper is absolutely plain. I am afraid that I must repeat it yet again:
	"We expect managers of Courts to be accountable to new local management boards. We expect decision-making to be de-centralised to the local management boards".
	Nothing will persuade this Committee that an advisory council is anything like a board which has managerial responsibilities. There is a clear case for any new bodies having responsibility for all the courts. We know that. But these bodies should be there to manage, not merely to advise. They should be there to ensure an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of the business of the courts.
	I simply do not understand how the noble Baroness can stand at the Dispatch Box and say with a straight face that the undertaking given in the White Paper is being honoured. No one in his right mind can argue that an advisory council is the same as a management board. What we are hearing today is an attempt to justify a complete reversal of policy by the Government and an attempt to justify a Bill which by no means honours the undertakings given in the White Paper and the undertakings given to the magistracy. No wonder people are cross.

Lord Borrie: I was most interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—in particular because he answered the question that I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay: she, as it were, passed it over to him. I believe his answer was that the local area court management boards proposed in his amendment would be concerned not merely with the administration of justice in magistrates' courts but also with the administration of justice in the Crown Court and the county courts—which is quite different from the present situation, where they are under a court service. I was interested for several reasons. Like my noble friend Lord Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, argued that we should all cherish and value the work of magistrates as a special feature of this country's administration of justice compared with that of others. Surely we should all share that view.
	The excellence of so much of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was spoiled by three matters. First was his obsession with the notion that the Lord Chancellor wishes to centralise in his own hands all power relating to the administration of justice. The second was the noble Lord's failure to address himself to the argument of Lord Justice Auld in his massive report of a couple of years ago for a unified system of court management. Thirdly, I was concerned that the noble Lord made no mention of the fact that magistrates, whose role in life we all cherish, will gain something in return for the loss he described. He never mentioned that they will gain a role in the administration of all courts through the Bill's proposal for court administration councils and their larger consultative role.
	The Auld report's case for a unified court management system was made powerfully a couple of years ago. It proposed the replacement of the present system of two separate court structures whereby Crown Courts are run by the Court Service and magistrates' courts are run by local Magistrates' Courts Committees, which makes for much inefficiency. I am still unsure whether the two opposition parties are for or against unification of the court management system. If they are in favour, it is odd to go about unification by proposing that in the administration of all courts in the country there should be a division of responsibility among—pick your number—42, 30 or however many areas.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted from the Auld report. At least he paid attention to it. The report, at page 292, states that there should be,
	"an executive agency providing a national service but with maximum delegation of managerial responsibility and control of resources to an accountable 'local manager' working in close liaison with the professional and lay judiciary".
	Clause 4 seems to provide for that. But the opposition parties seem to want 42 different bodies, or whatever number they propose, not a unified national service. The logic of the Auld report was to point to a national executive agency, which I shall not describe because my noble friend Lady Scotland did so adequately on 20th January as reported at column 543 of Hansard. She referred to an executive agency working in partnership with the court administration councils for each area, with each such council comprising members of the lay and professional judiciary and representatives of the local community.
	The Auld report also pointed to a local manager being employed by the court agency, not, as the opposition parties propose in their amendments, by a local management board. The amendments seem to constitute a complete turnabout from a unified structure, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, admitted. Their effect would be nowhere near what the Auld report recommended as desirable and sensible for a rational court structure.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord's quality of offensiveness is such that he almost persuaded me not to make this brief speech. At the risk of attracting death stares from my noble friends on the Front Bench and from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I have some sympathy with the Government's position. If the issue had been restricted to that of the magistracy, I would have had complete sympathy with the amendments.
	There is a real argument to be engaged in about the desirability of a unified court system. I know that I am a tedious advocate of the virtues of the Scottish system, but we have something like that. Nevertheless, in England, the magistracy is one of the jewels in the crown. The Government damage, at their risk, that wonderful contribution of lay justice which is not to be found anywhere else in the world and ought to be held in the highest possible regard.
	As I understand the role of the court administration councils, and as the Government wish to advance them, they should give the Lord Chancellor recommendations on how he should discharge his general duty in relation not only to magistrates' courts but to the Crown Court and county courts. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that the Queen's writ should run uniformly over the whole country. The Lord Chancellor has a general duty, and he should discharge it. In that context, regretfully, I do not entirely buy into the arguments that have been advanced, given the context within which the council is to be established.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, may find a measure of comfort in what I have said, but let me tell her that I find the relationship between subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 5 so offensive that even if no one else divides on the relevant amendment, I shall. I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor should have a general duty. I shall at a later stage have longer observations to make about this quite unnecessary restriction that the court administration councils can only make recommendations relating specifically to the area for which they are established. I give the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, fair warning. It seems a key point, and perhaps she would like to reflect on it before we next return to the Committee stage. In short compass, at present, I hope that I have given her at least a small measure of comfort.

Lord Hylton: It is regrettable that we should be discussing these important amendments after dinner, at 10 o' clock, in a thinly attended Committee.
	I have a good deal of sympathy for this group of amendments, but feel that they could be considerably improved. Subsection (4)(a) of Amendment No. 23 refers to
	"an officer of the board".
	I would like it to refer to officers of the courts, whose first loyalty is to the court and the interests of justice and not the interests of some centralised administration. The proposed subsections (7) and (8) in Amendment No. 28 seem to give back to the Lord Chancellor the widest possible powers to do whatever he likes. I do not think that can be quite right or achieves the purpose.
	Can the present system of justice, as exercised in magistrates' courts on a voluntary basis by volunteers, be combined with the professional courts with professional judges and juries? The two seem very different animals and I wonder whether the benefits claimed in the Auld report are real.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall briefly support the amendments. Given the Government's reluctance to show any sign that they wish to move on the substance of these clauses, the amendments will inevitably have to come forward and are bound to be strongly supported. Had the Government shown some sign of movement, there might have been some justification for staving them off. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, I have considerable support for the idea of a unified courts administration system. However, the fact is that we have a lacuna in the information provided to us and we can get no answers. The inevitable result of a vacuum is that something will try to fill it. The amendments have a great deal of merit and are worthy of support in the absence of any movement or indication by the Government of precisely how the new system will work.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I note that it is now five past 10. Although I would like to be telegraphic in my response, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would have put it, these amendments deserve a full response, because so many points have been made. I commend to the Committee the comments made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. For a moment I wondered whether there was unity of purpose to unify the courts. I adopt every statement made by my noble friend. I am most grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, although I understand that it is given with a caveat.
	There has been no U-turn. We have local decision-making. These decisions will be taken locally by chief officers in partnership with the court administration council. I am most grateful to my noble friend for reminding the Committee of what Lord Justice Auld said in the report that has caused us to seek to reform the courts administration structure in the way we suggest.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the noble Baroness accept that Lord Justice Auld said nothing about councils? He said that he leaves that to others, as the quotation that I gave shows.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is right. I shall not reiterate everything that my noble friend Lord Borrie said. He rightly referred to the comments of Lord Justice Auld that telegraph the way in which he suggests this may be managed and informed on a local basis, outlined in detail. That is echoed in the structure we have adopted.
	I appreciate that, at first blush, the suggestion in the amendments seems attractive—until one examines how it will work. We are told that there is agreement that a unified system has merit. We see much of that merit in the Court Service at the moment—the ability to move the occupation of courts from one area to another, the way in which area-to-area co-operation can help relieve the burden on certain courts and the way in which judges co-operate with each other, crossing boundaries to relieve brother and sister judges in other areas. Hertfordshire may assist Bedfordshire, who may assist Cambridgeshire. That happens with success and to the benefit of the individual citizen who awaits the determination of their case.
	It is important that we do not concentrate on magistrates' courts alone, valuable though they are. We must consider the system overall.
	I reiterate that we, too, believe that the function performed by magistrates is extremely valuable and precious. It was this Government who firmly said that the suggestion that we should do away with the lay magistracy and replace it with perhaps 1,000 district judges was not acceptable. In legislation we shall bring forward in due course, we propose to expand the jurisdiction of magistrates to enable them to have greater sentencing powers. So it cannot be said that this Government do not properly value the magistrates and the function they perform. I regret to say, however, that we believe that the model put forward in these amendments is internally inconsistent. I shall, if I may, touch on some of those inconsistencies.
	Our proposals are the fruit of a long period of discussion and consultation, beginning with Sir Robin Auld's review—which recommended a single, nationally funded administrative structure, but also one that provided significant local autonomy and accountability. In our statement of intent in Justice for All and in further work with the magistrates' court community, we did consider alternatives to the model set out in the Bill. We know that our objectives—local delegation and accountability within a national framework—are not easy bedfellows.
	We considered separate executive management boards with a national co-ordinating structure but concluded that it would not cure the defects that Sir Robin and our stakeholders diagnosed. It would undermine all that we seek to achieve by unifying, for reasons that I shall explain in commenting in detail on this amendment. We looked for a compromise—I suspect that noble Lords have made the same search—but concluded that a hybrid structure would serve only to muddy the waters and make it less clear than it is now who is responsible to Parliament for the effective and efficient administration of the courts.
	There are a number of disadvantages to Amendment No. 23. I shall, if I may, explain why we reject it. First, it would not create a unified administration. It would create 42 separate court administrations. Instead of breaking down organisational barriers, the amendment would erect them, undermining what we want to achieve in establishing clear accountability for national performance. The amendment would leave the Lord Chancellor with accountability for national performance but would give local boards the tools to deliver. The Lord Chancellor could intervene only by means of persuasion or by a cumbersome process of statutory direction. That is not a satisfactory situation.
	I should like to say something about court closures. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that court closures are an example of the difficulties. He said, "Look what happens when magistrates appeal to the Lord Chancellor". Let us look at it. It is the MCCs that decide to close courts. The Lord Chancellor is involved only in the event of an appeal by the paying authority. There is no specific criteria, as every appeal is decided individually. Common themes are accessibility and the cost of travel. In 2001, 12 appeals were decided and all 12 were dismissed. Of course, that means that the Lord Chancellor upheld the decisions made by the magistrates' courts committees.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As the noble Baroness referred directly to one of my points, perhaps she will allow me to say—as indeed Lord Justice Auld says—that the decision on closures is driven by the budgetary arrangements that come from central government. It is a myth to say that the closures are ordered by the MCCs. Closures are entirely a consequence of funding cuts and the formula adopted, which, for example, maintains that if one has a new central court system one is not charged any of the interest of the capital cost of building, thus putting the existing estate at a disadvantage. I therefore hope that she will reconsider the point.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We must beg to differ. We have crossed swords on the matter before and I refer the noble Lord to the answers that I gave previously. One benefit of the new administrative structure is that we could make better use of the court estate right across the piece. We would hope that in so doing, some of the court closures currently being mooted may be avoided, because those courts could be used by the county court, Crown Court or otherwise. That is one of the huge benefits in the change of model. That would also give a greater and stronger voice to magistrates' courts at the national level.
	Under the amendments, for example, instead of giving magistrates' courts a clear voice on the national criminal justice board through a unified agency, all the courts would be divided into 42 local bodies. I understand that that is what noble Lords on the Opposition Benches advocate. Making better use of resources—in particular, the court estate, which I mentioned—is a real benefit.
	The amendment would damage our ability to do so, reinforce organisational barriers and prevent us reaping the full benefit that we seek. That is especially important in the Crown Court, where it is often necessary to transfer work, and therefore resources, at short notice because of convenience to witnesses, security, or getting a jury without prejudice in high-profile murder and sex cases, for example. That is needed to deliver high levels of performance, which means a better level of service across the board, providing a platform for other reforms in the criminal justice system and in family and civil justice, for which a unified administration is crucial.
	For example, 43—or another number that may be chosen—separate organisations acting independently could hinder the early development of business centre capability for civil business. The current 218 county courts operate 218 back offices in isolation. The Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme (CTMP) is intended to remedy that by directing much of the most basic administrative work straight to business centres. The new agency will aid that process, contributing to increased efficiency in county courts.
	The amendments also undermine the benefits that I mentioned for staff and court users. There are problems at present with MCCs. Although of course we applaud the good work that they do, it would be futile not to acknowledge that there are difficulties. The Lord Chancellor's present relationship with them makes it difficult for him. For example, difficulties that arise in individual magistrates' court disputes between local magistrates, justices' clerks or JCEs can be resolved only by the MCC. Under unified administration, the Lord Chancellor will be able to set standard procedures for dealing with magistrates' complaints about the administration that are agreed with the Magistrates' Association, and to ensure that they are resolved.
	Many of the amendment's provisions are similar to those elsewhere in statute where particular public functions have been given to multiple local bodies—for example, local probation boards—but they simply would not fit with what we need to cure the problems that have been identified in the area.
	Several noble Lords mentioned the magistrates' courts committees as being representative. I hear what they say about that, but at present they are not as representative as they could be. Magistrates' courts committees are 75 per cent male and 25 per cent female. They are 96 per cent white; 0.5 per cent black; 1.5 per cent Asian and 1.5 per cent described as "other". Many magistrates' courts committees are 100 per cent white and 90 per cent male.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. How will the Bill affect the issue that she is now discussing?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In terms of our ability to set standards, make recommendations and how composition can be decided.
	I simply address the issue raised by Members of the Committee when they say that the magistrates' courts committees are at the moment representative. We say, "Yes, but not as representative as perhaps they could be". This is an issue which the magistrates' courts committees themselves seek actively to address across the country, and quite rightly so.
	I refer to the other problems that arise. It is very easy to think that everything at the moment is perfect; regrettably, it is not. Sir Robin Auld highlighted the fact that magistrates' courts committees had no budgetary control over their affairs; they simply bid each year to the maximum permitted by the Treasury. The arrangements for their accounting between themselves and the local authority, or authorities in whose areas they fall, are unsatisfactory. In addition, they are not subject to the satisfactory regime of audit. There is little detailed examination of the MCCs' financial affairs by the external auditor appointed by the Audit Commission to scrutinise local government expenditure or by the LCD's internal auditors.
	The inspectorate highlighted that practices vary considerably from one MCC to another, for example, in the format of case file sheets, legal aid applications and information technology systems. The MCSI report of 2001–02 found that 11 out 12 MCCs inspected were still not good at ensuring that systems to manage performance were in place. That had been highlighted in two previous MCSI reports and in 2001–02 the inspection report showed that only half of the MCCs inspected had appropriate monitoring procedures in place for fines and fees collected. Again, that was reflected in the two previous MCSI reports.
	Inspectors have some concerns about the leadership and direction provided by MCCs with only three out of 12 inspected being judged as providing clear leadership. Even where structures to manage performance in case administration had been put in place, inspectors found few examples where data were used to identify the factors contributing to poor performance. The MCSI also noted that in a quarter of MCCs inspected there was no clear link between the objective set in the strategic plan and the financial planning processes being undertaken.
	Therefore, we cannot pretend that all is rosy in the garden. There is much work to do. The MCC structure restricts the implementation of national initiatives. Many MCCs do not have scheduling protocols that conform to the national listing protocols published by the trials issues group in 1999. Inspectors encountered several senior MCC officials who had never heard of that document, despite reference to it in many individual reports and the last MCSI annual report. MCSI found nine out of the 12 MCCs inspected needed to improve scheduling in order to deploy resources effectively and needed to follow national guidance.
	It is well recognised that magistrates' courts handle 95 per cent of criminal business, yet there are inconsistencies in performance that cannot be explained by the complexity of the cases. A third of MCCs inspected had poor or declining case throughput performance and the associated long waiting times for witnesses and defendants.
	There is wonderful practice in some MCCs and less wonderful practice in others. What we want is a system which is nationally of good quality so that the quality of the justice and the efficiency of the procedure to which people are subject are not dependent on the area in which they live but are influenced by the local flavour and commitment of the people who operate the system.
	We hope that the structure that we propose addresses many of those issues. That litany of what can be improved in the MCCs does not mean that we do not value the extraordinarily good work that is done by the majority. However, if this was a report, we would have to say, "Could do better". The Bill is a means to deliver that improvement.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: It does not sound as though the Lord Chancellor's Department has done terribly well, having listened to the litany to which the noble Baroness referred a moment ago. It is a question of devolution in the end. Do we believe in local initiatives, priorities and decision making or, to use some of her words, do we want nationally the same thing, no inconsistencies, and national standards? Do we want to centralise, so that everything is the same throughout the country? It is a matter of approach.
	I have always been a devolutionist. I always believe that there is more confidence if decisions are taken locally by local people. In the same way in which I always mistrusted socialism, I have also mistrusted the centralisation of power and the decisions in Whitehall or wherever, among the heads of nationalised industries, that they know best for everyone throughout the country. I have always been against that, and in the clause the Government are going along those lines. Auld is clearly a centraliser. His report says nothing about local councils of any sort. I do not think that they are even implicit in what he says. He talks about local managers, who will take decisions locally. He is not involving local magistrates or anyone of that sort.
	The noble Baroness should not think that we are simply talking about magistrates. Of course we appreciate that the council or board proposed in the amendment will deal with Crown courts and county courts, as well as magistrates' courts. However, I see nothing wrong in magistrates being concerned in the administration of the Crown courts and county courts, as opposed to the Lord Chancellor's appointees, who may come from a locality but know nothing about any court at all, and are merely there because their names have gone forward. Magistrates are at least involved in the criminal justice system, and are more qualified than anyone else among the lay public to sit on such boards.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It is late, so do not worry: I am not going to say much. I shall merely thank the Minister for a long reply. I cannot resist her closing, headmistress-like jibe, "Could do better". Who could not do better? Which government department could not? Which centralised quango could not?
	The question is one of finding the right balance. In terms of a unified service, one can have more or less federalism among the 42 local boards. The litany of failure that the Government talk about could be dealt with via a much more effective national agency, which could work with the semi-autonomous boards that the amendment proposes.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was going to begin my winding-up with exactly the same words as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is indeed late. The Minister was right to take the amendment as seriously as she did and to give it careful consideration in her response, late though the hour is. However, I would be wrong if I then summarised the powerful points put by all Members of the Committee, whether they disagreed with me as did the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, or had some reservations as did my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. All Members of the Committee made strong representations. Debate on the subject goes to the heart of our main problems with this part of the Bill.
	Our difficulty is that we have a unity of purpose between us, but our unity of purpose is that we believe that the Government got things right the first time round, when they talked about local decision making. It is their second approach that we find unacceptable. The Minister said tonight and in her letter that what they said in the White Paper is what we have now, but patently that is not what we or all those outside the Chamber believe is in the Bill. We are trying to get greater clarity with regard to that. My noble friend Lord Waddington made a powerful point about the wording of the White Paper and clearly showed that there would be executive action at the local base. That would be, as he said, within a unified structure; the arrangement can work and will not simply involve a talking shop.
	The Minister said that our amendments were internally inconsistent. She did not actually prove that in her responses, but I shall read carefully what she said. We are not arguing that the amendments are the perfect solution. We are prepared to listen and learn and to work between now and Report for that solution. Our problem, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, is that so far the Government have made no movement. The Minister repeatedly said that magistrates' courts committees have not worked and involved many problems. They have said that they want to find a way forward to something better.
	The more that the noble Baroness spoke tonight, the more I saw coming towards me the leviathan of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the unified structure. I am sure that that is not the impression that she was trying to give. However, I saw that coming down the tracks towards me at a slow but relentless rate, gathering within it all the other organisations: tribunals here and tribunals there.
	On Report, we may have further opportunity to reflect on what unification as opposed to centralisation of power means. We may come back with a proposal that finds favour with, I hope, a majority in the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eleven o'clock.